CB,
Good points. The one concerning the development of language as a instrument
of reproduction is particularly interesting. I've been playing around with
the idea of a dialectical prehistory/history of information systems as the
development of reproductive systems (starting with the highly abstract
systems of subcellular organic reproduction to the very very concrete forms
of learned human communication systems). Maybe some day.
You are of course correct all human learning is always thoroughly saturated
with talk and language.
BUT,
1. We tend to exaggerate the importance of linguistic communication or at
least the importance of developed language in linguistic communication.[Noam
Chomsky is the paragon of this. He's so impressed by the size and
complexity of the syntactic analytical system he developed to explain the
formation of well-formed sentences that he despairs of men's ability to
learn and use it].
Vygotsky among many others, especially novelists and playwrights, have noted
just how little a vocabulary (much less syntax) is needed to communicate
complex information. Personally I've had quite a few fairly rich
conversations consisting almost entirely of the F and S words. Looking over
some of the recordings made by discourse analysts like Potter and Antaki it
appears in many cases that in elaborating of the language tool man has
developed an A Bomb to crack a walnut.
Then too, much practical learning cannot really be carried out by verbal
description. For Ethiopian farmers one of the greatest hurdles for learning
to use the computer was simply to learn how to use the mouse and keyboard.
The physical activity, that is, the logic they picked up right away. It was
almost impossible to describe to them just how hard to hit the keys or how
far to jiggle the mouse. The best tool was demonstration, often with the
instructor guiding the student's hand with his own. I've also taught
sketching and while there are a good many interesting tricks for teaching
people how to see and translate what they see into marks on paper and so on,
almost none are verbal.
It seems to me that our theories of language use are not nearly concrete
enough to accurately explain many features of actual language use and its
role in social life.
2. When we compare human information transmission systems with those of
other life forms, we tend to use our own highly developed communication
systems as the typical human system. It isn't really very typical at all.
In the some 200,000 years of H. Sapiens's existence on the planet, his
technological array only began to show serious signs of surpassing that of
his close relatives about 60,000 years ago. Settled human life begins maybe
10,000 years ago while writing is no older than about 5,000 years ago.
Almost all the fancy equipment we now use to communicate with and by is less
than 100 years of age. But this is not all. The repertory of human
artefacts remains disappointingly small (for most men) until up to nearly
modern times. The probability is that men had much less to say to each
other than we are accustomed to and much of what they had to communicate
could better (see above) by means other than language.
The point is that the development of modern human information systems and
the rich collection of subjects of interest is the product of the
dialectical development of human culture from very simple origins to its
present developed state. It is quite likely that we would find that the
great gulf of language and culture that separates men from the more
developed animals was far less evident for the first 120,000 years of human
development and only now appears to be absolutely insurmountable.
Oudeyis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
andthe thinkers he inspired'" <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 20:03
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Victor :
CB,
Continued from last message.
First, let's not forget that a lot of human learning is "human see human
do." And some of the things we learn this way are as complex as
ant-fishing
with a straw.[it's actually quite a complicated affair to get it just
right.
I've tried
it though I drew a line at eating the ants.]
^^^^
CB: Yes, but, the human see-do learning is always thoroughly saturated
with
talk and language. Imagine trying to teach all the human see-do stuff
restricted to pantomime. It is not close. Symbols allow the "imitation"
of
the actions of dead people; "imitation" without direct observation.
^^^^^^^
According to Vygotsky, a truly creative relation to cultural conventions
(the development of conceptual speech) is a rather late stage in the
development of the child.
^^^^
CB: Most of the symbols are preexisting to anyone individual. The
"creativity" is not the critical issue, rather the conventionality is, or
the establishment of conventional meanings. That's the essence of symbols,
arbitrary and conventional associations, not creative associations.
^^^^^^
Second, Ilyenkov sees the origins of ideality in social labour, i.e.
direct
cooperation, rather than in tool using.
^^^^
CB: I think it more likely originates in childrearing. Women probably
invented symboling and ideality to teach children. So it orginates in
reproduction,not production.
But definitely social , however, childrearing is the original sociality.
It
involves cooperation between mothers and children.
^^^^^^
If I were to search for examples of pre-human ideality I would look for
collective work activity rather than tool use. A number of pre-human
predators; female lions and house cats,
canines of all sorts, and chimpanzee males engage in cooperative chase and
ambush of game (and in the case of chimpanzees of each other). Chase and
ambush of living game is a complex and very fluid activity requiring
considerable coordination between participants if it's to succeed, and
could
conceivably be a basis for the establishment of ideal forms (rules or
principles of action designed to collectively achieve communal goals).
It's
also possible that collective care and nursing of young characteristic of
prides of lionesses and of house cats, most canines and many of the
primates
might also qualify here. Like pre-human toolmaking and use these
primitive
ideals would be very abstract and particular to certain kinds of
activities
and never reach the concreteness and universality of human ideality.
Oudeyis
^^^^^^^
CB: I agree with the emphasis SOCIAL labor, not instrumental labor. Yes,
the
explosion of human sociality made possible by ideality would enhance both
predator( hunt ) and prey ( self-defense) productive activities of the
first
humans,as well as reproductive activities, sexual intercourse, pregnancy
and
childrearing. It would also enhance gathering of food practices. All
around
Darwinian fitness would be enhanced most especially by increased
sociality.
The increased sociality of human toolmaking and use is the _reason_ that
those practices are so much more productive in humans as compared with
other
species. It is not the qualitative characteristic of instrumental activity
that distinguishes humans. It is the qualitative and quantitative advances
in toolmaking and use due to increased sociality of same that distinguish
humans.
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
