Re: [Air-l] Is all Communication Commercial?
Charlie Balch wrote "At a basic level we are all communicating feed and don't hurt me. Once that message is received we can discuss what car I should buy or even the nature of communication." I just received the post with this due to a computer glitch. Just wanted to add: That was basically (!) what I had in mind tho without the background reading you mention, which certainly ratchets up the interpretation. It was the fight/flight duality in mamals that was in my mind but also the basic functions of cells (respiration, excretion, reproduction, growth, mobility if memory serves). No, I haven't worked it out in detail, but that cellular exonomics, so to speak, was in my mind as well as at the human level the psychology of making sometimes instinctual sometimes more cultural chioices as they occur. I think its been proven that fetal consciousness in the womb is developed to learn linguistically (interpreting at least tone of voice so as to distinguish between anger/calm, happy/sad, etc). But I don't know the actual age at which this begins. Sorry for all lthis halfway researfch but it seems to me that it was Melanie Klein who developed a theory interpreting agression based on infants' interpretation of a good and bad breast, the former one giving milk, the latter not. Then finally : ) there was the thought which I have from reading Julia Kristeva to the effect that the child must lose touch with the "maternal object" in order to enter into the process of symbol creating. I may have been hasty about assuming that commerce and economy (in the production, not the thrifty sense) are separate. For commerce my battered Webster's Ninth Collegiate gives (1) "social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments". An interesting development from my pioint of view. Thanks again for your comments! Best regards, Will William Bain PhD Student Comparative Literature Department of Spanish Philology Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
I can't resist adding to the gumbo (as they say in the South USA). Maslow noted that, past a certain point, higher needs can sublimate lower ones. Suicide bombers are an example. In this context I recall that we have no direct writings from the originators of all the major religions. Some of them even specifically said not to have their words written down (but their disciples did anyway). Perhaps all members of this list have not made communications that were antithesis to "feed and don't hurt me" but I suspect, like me, most of us have. We need to communicate so many things. Hmmm. I know the reason that I teach (and participate in this list) is that I need to communicate. I wonder if I'd get the same joy (and more commercial feedback) if I were a salesperson. Charlie Balch yada yada -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of William Bain Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:20 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Is all Communication Commercial? Charlie Balch wrote "At a basic level we are all communicating feed and don't hurt me. Once that message is received we can discuss what car I should buy or even the nature of communication." I just received the post with this due to a computer glitch. Just wanted to add: That was basically (!) what I had in mind tho without the background reading you mention, which certainly ratchets up the interpretation. It was the fight/flight duality in mamals that was in my mind but also the basic functions of cells (respiration, excretion, reproduction, growth, mobility if memory serves). No, I haven't worked it out in detail, but that cellular exonomics, so to speak, was in my mind as well as at the human level the psychology of making sometimes instinctual sometimes more cultural chioices as they occur. I think its been proven that fetal consciousness in the womb is developed to learn linguistically (interpreting at least tone of voice so as to distinguish between anger/calm, happy/sad, etc). But I don't know the actual age at which this begins. Sorry for all lthis halfway researfch but it seems to me that it was Melanie Klein who developed a theory interpreting agression based on infants' interpretation of a good and bad breast, the former one giving milk, the latter not. Then finally : ) there was the thought which I have from reading Julia Kristeva to the effect that the child must lose touch with the "maternal object" in order to enter into the process of symbol creating. I may have been hasty about assuming that commerce and economy (in the production, not the thrifty sense) are separate. For commerce my battered Webster's Ninth Collegiate gives (1) "social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments". An interesting development from my pioint of view. Thanks again for your comments! Best regards, Will William Bain PhD Student Comparative Literature Department of Spanish Philology Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.5/899 - Release Date: 7/13/2007 3:41 PM
I'd just say 'no', but then say... it varies as per the level of analysis. if you drive, as Bataille and Baudrillard and others do, the location of exchange into the system of relations of signification, then the mode of production, or the hegemonic strategy of capitalism, or whatever you want to ascribe as ideological function inhabits that exchange, so if you think that there is a unified hegemony or a singular mode of production, and that is commercial, then yes All communication is commercial by relation to the series of definitions that you could use. So the level of analysis above is the ontological level, existence as a sign requires exchange, and exchange is structured by 'ideology'. If you move out to systems of knowledge, you can make the same argument, but you can rely on different axioms. I'm not really comfortable trying to locate this as an quantitive question though... i see it more as an interpretative and empirical question framed by your axioms.
participants (3)
-
Charlie Balch -
Jeremy Hunsinger -
William Bain