Dog Ma /11/04
reply w/o spam

Joel Reicher wrote:
Benjamin Lee Whorf (not to be confused with Security Chief Worf)
asserted
that one can't actually have an experience until there exists a category
by
which to understand it.

That sounds like strong Sapir-Whorf. Weak is much more
believable. Having the extra `mental vocabulary' enables a person to
better comprehend their experiences, perhaps, but it's not a
prerequisite to actually having the experience.

To put it another way, you're most well equipped to taste tea by
having had a lot of experience tasting tea.

I wouldn't suggest otherwise - just pointing out that some people believe in
the "strong" Wghorfian hypothesis, and many more in the weaker version.

Read them many many years ago and do not intend to dig them up again.

My own experience is that experience alone is both necessary and sufficient
for enjoying tea, but not sufficient to develop a useful vocabulary by which
to describe the experience.

Describing the experience is the booby prize. Experiencing is....

Further, sharing even clumsy concepts of the
taste/aroma experience and its evocations is a great way to develop
sensitivity to distinctions both subtle and coarse.

"Distinctions," eh? There ya go again.

Many people smell

God, I hope theres more coming.

cyanide and benzaldehyde as "almond" until some differences are pointed out.
Likewise, lots of things are categorized as "yucky" until (1) associated
with positive shared experiences, social cachet, etc.; and (2) clearly
distinguished as to source, context and safety.

Durian: We love that aroma from cheese, but we want our fruit to
be...fruity.

Michael