Children/Guidelines/Concequence

This is in response to Krystal's blog "Of Bad Words and Binks." [quick thought] Children are curious. People are curious, but especially children. If the parent is well educated themselves and understands the meaning(s) of what they are trying to teach their child then I think once a child starts speaking and copying language from their surroundings, parents should teach their child what that language means whatever may be included in the language the child is learning, even curse words. (teach all types of perceptions that could be taken from the word at hand or at least that there are many, especially between cultures). And explain it is not always the word itself but the context. One could stub their toe and say shit, not a big deal, but if someone called another person 'shit', that's a big deal. I definitely think the parents should consistently remind their child what words mean and can mean. And if the parents do not know the meaning/perceived meanings/or how to teach the child, then they should learn quickly. But I don't think just telling the child once or a couple times will do the trick.

and if a child uses a curse word, I do not think the parent(s) need to get pissed off or over protective to not educate the child, the child should know not to use those words because of how they make others feel and how by using the words, the child is giving off a negative vibe with the child's environment(other people), and could put the child in a situation where others are hostile because of the child's curse words.

I think it is ignorant to shelter the child from the knowledge of something the child is being exposed to whether the child is in control of it or not. Children will encounter things in the world, especially when they get older, and they can have knowledge about them to know how to deal with the situation at hand or have no clue because the child's been sheltered.

example: child over sheltered [a], child with a balance of shelter and leniency [b]

child b drank some beers during high school
child a did not

child b goes to college and is aware of how much they can handle

child a never had one drink and over does it, ending up with alcohol poisoning.

Obviously this is a mere example, but it happens.

Swatting a Fly

I agree alot with what Betsy has said in her blog "Roaming Reflective Realms." And what Emily is talking about in her blog "Response to Betsy."

I couldn't imagine living with the constant thought of every step I take killing some organism or ant in the grass, etc. But I also do not walk around intentionally killing these creatures. There is the self-defense and instinctual reflex of humans to swat a mosquito on their skin, which of course I have done, but I have heard that if you let the mosquito fully suck the blood from you that when it's done it releases something that makes your skin not itch as if you had interrupted the mosquito. I actually tried this, I don't know the technicals or truth to the claim, but I tried it and it didn't seem to really itch. It was horrible resisting the urge to swat it away.

To quickly comment on Emily's question, is what is natural justifiable? I would have to say not always, intentions are natural and not all intentions are rightly justified, and instincts are also natural. Many things are natural and I don't personally see them in every case as being justified just because they are natural. The organisms and creatures on this earth are here for the balance, just because we are able to undo that balance does not mean we should. None of us are to say where the balance goes, humans are below the wonders of mother nature, and have no right pre-meditatively killing anything.

Speaking of intentions not justifiable/justifiable,

My Question: Do you think it is justified to torture people with the use of music? (I am thinking of the last scene in 'A Clock Work Orange.')

Response to Emily's blog "Music as Language"

This is in response to Emily's blog "Music as Language," which is a response [i believe] to Amy's question what is language in her blog "Music Vs. Language."


I do not think that language includes music (without human-voice, as we discussed in-class). I think that within the realm of communication, music fits, but not the realm of language, which is also found in 'communication'. The two could overlap if we were discussing music with words, and those words would contribute to the overlap between 'communication' and 'language:
[words/human voice - using interchangeably because of different languages I'm not aware of]



I like the definition of language, "a language is the use of voice or symbols to intellectually and linguistically communicate," and I agree sound can be a symbol. But from this definition of a language, music (w/o words) does not 'linguistically' communicate.

To clarify: Linguistics means: The study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including
...phonetics -the science or study of speech sounds and their production, transmission, and reception, and their analysis, classification, and transcription,
...phonology -the study of the distribution and patterning of speech sounds in a language and of the tacit rules governing pronunciation.
...morphology -the patterns of word formation in a particular language, including inflection, derivation, and composition,
...syntax -the study of the rules for the formation of grammatical sentences in a language / the study of the patterns of formation of sentences and phrases from words.
...semantics -the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence
...sociolinguistics -the study of language as it functions in society; the study of the interaction between linguistic and social variables.
...pragmatics -the analysis of language in terms of the situational context within which utterances are made, including the knowledge and beliefs of the speaker and the relation between speaker and listener.

Languages contains words and letters and symbols [linguistically communicated], used to make concepts into specific messages. Music can not specifically show you a concept or tell you a concept.


Emily writes.. "I agree with you [Amy] that usually, music is only used to express general emotions, not specific messages. But that doesn't mean it can't express specific emotions." This is true. But here it seems you are admitting music doesn't express specific messages, which I think it does not. I think that is what Amy meant by specific 'messages,' the linguistic aspect, because I am sure that Amy as well as myself agree that music can express specific emotions (or specific emotions can be perceived from musical works), but messages and emotions are two different things.


These examples you gave I believe are forms of communication, within and changeably throughout societies, cultures, and communities, "the sound of a bell signals the end of a class period in high school. A firm alarm signals danger. The sound of crying represents sadness." But not forms of a language. A fire alarm signals danger... really a fire alarm signals a fire which [in this society, at least] signals danger, that's a form of communication, not language.

Within signification, there's a signifier(sound-image) and a signified (concept). The fire alarm is the signifier and the flames of fire and burning(danger) is the signified or concept. But they are not linguistically communicated in the example above.

Here's an example. The picture is the concept, that one is thinking, and the -word- 'arbor' is the signifier to what the concept is; that what the person is thinking of is an arbor tree. By writing down 'arbor' in the given language or verbalizing 'arbor' in that language or symbolizing it linguistically, one is communicating through language. you couldn't symbolize an arbor tree through music [unless the notes were made parallel to an alphabet].




We use languages to communicate between each other. A fire alarm signals a fire to me, the sound communicates to me a concept, and I would communicate that concept through language [say fire, write fire, to whomever]



My Question: When musicians communicate through music, it seems more peaceful than when some people communicate through language, if you had to choose, like we had fun with the thought of an absence of music, would you prefer music in the world or language? Would music create wars? But would music give specific instructions that bosses need to give to employees (whatever the job is) to create the society we have now? Why would you choose what you did? We are all music lovers so I guess I am just curious to see what you think the pros/cons of having just music and the pros and cons of havign just language.