What did you say? And what did you mean by it?
I assume that by "get an idea" you mean some type of experiencing that occurs that is caused by a state of the brain.
I further assume that our brains are similar enough that the states produced are similar.
Then it is just a signal pathway with a correlation data set. So the author is idea experiencing and can represent the idea as a character string in some language by accessing correlations of stored in his brain. Once the idea is represented in the syntax of some language the brain decides to write or type the syntax and activates the required motor neurons again accessing a host of data. The paper, or screen etc is usually viewed using light and the optical receptors, eyes, which transduce the signal to electrical chemistry on the optic nerves of the reader. They enter the brain in the back and are further processed. The processing results in the causation of idea experiencing as the final transduction in the brain. The idea experiencing of the author is correlated with the idea experiencing of the reader because of the similarity of their brains and the training process that has occurred for both.
Good post.odysseus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:56 pm There are a great number of issues within this: a text? IS there one text, or does any given text yield to the reader in such a way that each interpretation constitutes an text unto itself, making one text actually as many as there are readers. Then what of that which binds a community of reader/interpreters together, the commonality of thought, the consensus: how is it that we agree? It would seem there is something that we all are even if we are entirely different centers of understanding. We are the language and the cultural institutions that circulate through our talk and our thoughts and feelings. But is there anything behind such institutions? Or does an analysis of these exhaust who and what we are? Is the written text simply a representional example, a part of a body of collective thinking, in which case,to read is to agree on possibilities as to what meaningful interpretations could even be? What about ambiguity? In Stanley Fish's Is There a Text in this Class? we are presented with the ambiguity of terms, as they are contextually bound. What does this mean language, written or otherwise? Is the text context bound? What then is the nature of being so? Is it a pragmatic business,determining which "text" is the term that applies here or there?
then this moves into the nature of language itself. I think our terms are pragmatic constructions, living vestiges of problem solving experiences past. Te whole of our being here is problem solving, and language is at the center. It is equipmental, it has utility. And importantly, it does not tell us what things are, only how.