The transformational grammar of a fly agaric hypothesis.
Linguistic warfare and Guerrilla ontological combat, in the mushroom field.
the word Fly…morpheme - usage - spread - ambiguity - butter
“The more combinations a morpheme is found in, the more productive it is said to be.”
All that is, is metaphor’—RAW, quoted Bucky and/or Korzybski?
naturally occurring metaphor vs. abstraction. What action?
Philosophy of language - panspermia - mycological etymology:
Generative Semantics
Korzybski - TTOTT - RAW.
Chomsky - generative syntax - vs. Lakoff - Generative semantics - linguistic wars.
entheobotany - samorini - bridge to natural world
“descriptive generalizations are not hyperthetical, but demonstrable in nature.”
Fly - Flight - Flies:
Fly Agaric - species found in nature - in the woods, literally the thing, named for it’s function.
And T. Mckenna - brewing psilocybin and evolution of human language
spatial language - different combinations of the same thing - primitives - native american system
concepts - containments- room, face of clock, bottle - topological trends
scale invariant - in and out - dependent on topology VR/AR whoa'
and motion - kinds of motion in different languages - along - besides something that is long
nearness
things in motion & motion in things
verb of motion - road, path - verb of motion to TRACE that motion
goes along the coast - runs through
embodied cognition - image schemes, structure how you see, how do you move.
--Steve Fly
--Steve Fly
HYPOTHSIS:
It is possible that the core principles of the language faculty be correlated to natural laws (such as for example, the Fibonacci sequence — an array of numbers where each consecutive number is a sum of the two that precede it, see for example the discussion Uriagereka 1997 and Carnie and Medeiros 2005). According to the hypothesis being developed, the essential properties of language arise from nature itself: the efficient growth requirement appears everywhere, from the pattern of petals in flowers, leaf arrangements in trees and the spirals of a seashell to the structure of DNA and proportions of human head and body. If this law applies to existing systems of cognition, both in humans and non-humans, then what allows our mind to create language? Could it be that a single cycle exists, a unique component of which gives rise to our ability to construct sentences, refer to ourselves and other persons, group objects and establish relations between them, and eventually understand each other? The answer to this question will be a landmark breakthrough, not only within linguistics but in our understanding of cognition in general. —https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biolinguistics
“Many scientists share the belief that there are problems with falsifiability and foundation ontologies purporting to describe "what exists", to a sufficient degree of rigor to establish a reasonable method of empirical validation. But Lakoff takes this further to explain why hypotheses built with complex metaphors cannot be directly falsified. Instead, they can only be rejected based on interpretations of empirical observations guided by other complex metaphors. This is what he means when he says[7] that falsifiability itself can never be established by any reasonable method that would not rely ultimately on a shared human bias. The bias he's referring to is the set of conceptual metaphors governing how people interpret observations.”
“In the 1996 book Moral Politics, Lakoff described conservative voters as being influenced by the "strict father model" as a central metaphor for such a complex phenomenon as the state and liberal/progressive voters as being influenced by the "nurturant parent model" as the folk psychological metaphor for this complex phenomenon. According to him, an individual's experience and attitude towards sociopolitical issues is influenced by being framed inlinguistic constructions. In Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf, he argues that the American involvement in the Gulf war was obscured or "spun" by the metaphors which were used by the first Bush administration to justify it.”
“In 2006 Steven Pinker wrote an unfavorable review of Lakoff's book Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea. Pinker's review was published in The New Republic. Pinker argued that Lakoff's propositions are unsupported and his prescriptions are a recipe for electoral failure. He wrote that Lakoff was condescending and deplored Lakoff's "shameless caricaturing of beliefs" and his "faith in the power of euphemism". Pinker portrayed Lakoff's arguments as "cognitive relativism, in which mathematics, science, and philosophy are beauty contests between rival frames rather than attempts to characterize the nature of reality". Lakoff wrote a rebuttal to the review stating that his position on many matters is the exact reverse of what Pinker attributes to him. Lakoff explicitly rejected, for example, the cognitive relativism and faith in euphemism described above, arguing in favor of a deeper understanding of rationality that discards the modal logic conceptualization of rationality in favor of the better supported framingconceptualization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff
Steve Fly 33.
