[lbo-talk] Blue Dogs cashing in

[Jeffrey Fisher]

yeah, not to get into semiology. i was thinking of the way geertz talks
about modeling, and this comes out in his definition of religion, which is
my main work with geertz. but alan is on this -- for geertz it's about
meaning. concepts. symbols are abstract representations of concepts, i think
is what he says? and the important part for geertz is meaning.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>wrote:


>
> If by "symbols" we just mean "something that points beyond itself," a sign
> (not to get into semiology), I think that their use is very common among
> nonhumans. A smell points to the source of the smell. A bared grin points to
> "oh crap the alpha dog is pissed off." An event points to a future event.
> Animals don't live in the solipsism of the moment. It's hard to imagine any
> but the most rudimentary form of stimulus-response behavior that doesn't use
> them.
>
> --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > on the other hand, i admit it's not entirely clear to me
> > (IAmNotAnAntrhopologist--although i admit i play one in
> > class, sometimes),
> > that imitation doesn't require a certain use of symbols, if
> > only in a very
> > rudimentary way. seeing someone else do something and then
> > seeing how that
> > might be something you yourself could
> > do? doesn't this require at least a modicum of abstraction
> > from the
> > event to the possibility of a future event, and further,
> > the use of
> > the observed behavior as a model of one's own behavior?
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>