Jack, Helmut, list
I think one has to be careful of the use of the term 'culture'. If
we consider that it is a 'set of beliefs of normative behaviour',
then, we have to ask: are these beliefs innate or learned?
Most animals have a set of beliefs about 'How to Live' that are
innate. This 'already set' knowledge base means that they need spend
very little time learning -how to live. It also means that they
cannot change this knowledge.
The human species, homo sapiens has no innate knowledge. This means
that they must, as Helmut points out, develop a method for
generating, communicating and storing this knowledge, ie. symbolic
language. It also means that they must spend a great deal of time
learning this knowledge - and so, this sets up a societal system
where the older generation must provide sustenance and security - and
learning - for the offspring for many years. This means also, that the
knowledge base, since it is generated and stored outside of the
biological...can be changed. Evolution and adaptation moves into
self-organization!
My understanding of a belief is a concept that we hold to be
valid/true. So, I believe that taking zinc supplement tablets is good
for my immune system. It is a 'belief'. The source of this belief is
'fixation of belief by authority'; that is, some assumed expert has
told me this, and I accept his word. I, myself, have no empirical
inductive or scientific knowledge of this. Frankly, that holds true
for a lot of my beliefs - including my atheism. Indeed, I'd say that
many of our beliefs are held without the use of the scientific method
and instead, are generated and held within Peirce's other methods:
tenacity, a priori and authority.
Edwina
On Sun 25/07/21 1:00 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Jack, Edwina, List Animals do have culture! What divides humans
from animals is not culture, but language and symbolic thinking/
expression/ behavior, I guess. To not have belief is not
psychopathic, but belief totally is. I don´t have any idea, what is
meant by "belief". There is knowing, not knowing, and a scale of more
or less likely-assuming in between. I assume about 98% that there is
God. But what the hell, in which I do not believe, is belief supposed
to be? I think, to believe is something psychopaths do. A psychopath
for examle is a stalker, who believes that she loves him, although
she has said again and again that she doesn´t. This is a typical
example for belief. Best, Helmut 25. Juli 2021 um 18:40 Uhr
"JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY"
wrote: Edwina, List, I agree with your quibble -- though I
refrain from saying "societal organization" and other such calques
because of their association with particular modes/epochs of
anthropology/sociology (functionalism and so on). It is true that
"culture" has to do with societal organization and vice vera except
but perhaps the easiest/most general definition of anthropology is
that the anthropologist studies (with) humans. The reason this
definition is problematic, however, is because it raised the question
as to what divides human from animal? To which the anthropologist will
answer "culture" (and so the age-old culture/nature dichotomy rides
again!). Edwina said: "Hmm. I don't think that there IS such a
thing. To function without a commonality of beliefs/behaviour is
psychopathic." Yes, it's hard to imagine. Although, in theory, it
does/has existed. The category of homo ferus is about as close as we
can get to the individual in absentia of common beliefs/behaviours
(or the commonality of language as symbolic conditioning/violence, to
reference Robert Marty's previous post). With regard to Peirce,
perhaps we can think of it in probabilistic terms? The baby
represents pure iconic possibility (or generality) insofar as it is
relatively structure free but will, almost immediately, begin to
assimilate structures in ways which simultaneously open and foreclose
the scope of possible future meaning(s). Well off the beaten
track, but interesting topic. Best Jack
-------------------------
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 5:03 PM
To: h.raul...@gmx.de ; tabor...@primus.ca ; JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Re: [EXTERNAL] [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs
thinking in words
Jack, list
A minor quibble I prefer to say that anthropologists study
'societal organization' rather than 'culture'. Just a personal quirk.
My view of this societal organization is that - since our knowledge
base is learned and not innate, - this means that it is a communal
knowledge base [rather than individual]...we must have some means of
both developing, spreading and storing this knowledge base [1ns, 2ns,
3ns]. Language provides all three methods of dealing with this
knowledge base. And the three modes of reasoning [abduction,
induction, deduction'] enable us to develop and use this knowledge
base.
Jack wrote: "The capacity to learn or acquire a given
linguistic/structural form is innate, but the meanings of those forms
and structures is culturally relative." Yes - I fully agree. Add to
this, that meanings are also 'interpretants' - and we find
misinformation possible not only among societal members but in our
communications with non-members.
But- at the same time, we are biologically common as a species [homo
sapiens...I don't believe in 'race']...and therefore, we have much in
common; our biological realities; and that we must all develop
language; we must all develop a knowledge base which is stored within
the community and we must all learn this knowledge base.
That's an interesting concept: What does it mean to be 'human' in
the absence of culture' [or societal beliefs/behaviour']. Hmm. I
don't think that there IS such a thing. To function without a
commonality of beliefs/behaviour is psychopathic.
And yes - it is interesting to see that in our history, various
groups define 'Others' as 'not human' - which means that they confine
the property of 'being human' to their own tribe, so to speak.
Edwina
On Sun 25/07/21 11:12 AM , JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY
jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie sent: Helmut, Edwina, List About
language and culture I am a universalist, who likes Chomsky´s
theory, and not Sapir/Whorf´s. The meaning of different cultures is
mutual enrichment, but not separation or definition of "identities".
Only people with a lack of self-esteem and psychological resources
think they need an identity from an institution outside them, and
outside their being human, like culture, ethnicity, or nation.
"culture" is a notoriously difficult term to define (anthropology is
primarily the study of "culture" but I'm not sure of two
anthropologists who have yet agreed in every respect as to what
"culture" actually is). The only thing I am reasonably sure of is
that the meaning of language and linguistic units is a cultural
matter. The capacity to learn or acquire a given
linguistic/structural form is innate, but the meanings of those forms
and structures is culturally relative. Or, rhetorically, what is it
to be "human" in the absence of "culture"? The concept of "human"
itself conceals a whole nexus of culturally received categories which
vary accordingly from group to group (from culture to culture). Best
Jack
-------------------------
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on behalf of Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 3:27 PM
To: h.raul...@gmx.de
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu ; s...@bestweb.net
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in
words
*WARNING*
This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail
System. Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless you
recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Helmut, list
1] I am against linguistic determinism [the so-called Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis] but consider that our knowledge base is not innate but
learned. Therefore, a culture/society whose knowledge base includes a
belief that the hunter and the hunted are together involved in a
relationship - will readily express that relationship in their
language format. So, Man-Deer//Hunt, rather than Man Hunts the Deer.
This belief in How We Relate to the World is, I suggest, expressed in
language.
The verb, after all, in my suggestion, plays the same role as the
Representamen in the semiosic triad, and as such, in the definition
of the triad, where the representamen/sign brings the interpretant
into connection with its object, or "a sign is in a conjoint relation
to the thing denoted and to the mind" 1885 W5.162. Therefore, the
cognitive place of that Representamen is important.
As for linguistic universalism - I understand this only to suggest
that ALL human beings have the cognitive and necessary capacity to
learn and develop a logical symbolic form of communication - but -
importantly, I don't feel that the format of the communication system
or its grammar, is identical. That is - I don't agree that the
so-called Aryan or European linguistic format is 'the default'. And
the thing about this symbolic form of cognition and communication -
is its flexibility; it can change, not only its words/symbols, but
its relation-format.
2] I don't know what you mean by 'The meaning of different cultures
is mutual enrichment, but not separation or definition of
"identities". Only people with a lack of self-esteem and
psychological resources think they need an identity from an
institution outside them, and outside their being human, like
culture, ethnicity, or nation"
I am unsure of your meaning. You can't be saying that 'different
cultures' are different only to enrich each other'!!! After all, a
hunting/gathering set of beliefs if functional for that lifestyle -
and doesn't develop or exist only to 'enrich' the nearby pastoral
nomadic society. And is one's 'culture' really 'outside of
oneself'??? Are beliefs, or Thirdness, really existent outside of the
'holders' of those habits-of-belief?
3] Graphs are not meant to translate from one language to another!!
They are, in my view, meant only to show relationships. Period.
Edwina
On Sun 25/07/21 9:51 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, John, List I think, when somebody, regardless of which
language or culture, reads a sentence, he*she does not jump to
conclusions unless the sentence is read. So I guess that the role of
the verb´s position should not be overestimated. Like culture in
general should not. The Yoruba color classes "Fun fun", "Pupa", and
"Du du" I can easily understand and adjust to, although I never
before have had any knowledge of the Yoruba culture. But its color
classification makes perfect sense to me. About language and culture
I am a universalist, who likes Chomsky´s theory, and not
Sapir/Whorf´s. The meaning of different cultures is mutual
enrichment, but not separation or definition of "identities". Only
people with a lack of self-esteem and psychological resources think
they need an identity from an institution outside them, and outside
their being human, like culture, ethnicity, or nation. There are many
similarities, but hardly any incommensurabilities between different
native languages and cultures. But language in general is imperfect,
so graphs are a good thing I guess. But you can easily translate a
complex novel from one language into the other, but try to translate
"Finnegan´s Wake", or just "Yankee Doodle came to town" into graphs.
At least I have not seen anything like that ever done. Best, Helmut
25. Juli 2021 um 14:55 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
John, list
I wonder if diagrammatic thinking is focused more on relations than
specific and separate individual units, i.e., verbs and
subjects/objects.
That is, I long ago noticed that some indigenous languages which are
oral rather than literate- and I'd include ancient Chinese and Latin -
have the verb at the end of the sentence. So, the format is
Subject/Object/Verb. Our modern format - and that includes modern
Chinese, has put the verb in between the Subject and Object. So, the
meaning becomes X does something to Y...and in a way, X is not
affected by the action.
To me, this old oral format means that the subject and object are
together co-involved within the actions of the verb. I think this
fits in with Peirce's triadic format where the Representamen/Sign
mediates between the Object and Interpretant. And where the
Interpretant does affect the original Object. So, the format here is
X/Y are involved in an action. ..and both are affected by this action.
So- I'm wondering if diagrams are also easier to understand because
they clarify the relations that are going on.
Edwina
On Sat 24/07/21 6:06 PM , "John F. Sowa" s...@bestweb.net sent:
Edwina,
Yes. That is a major advantage of diagrams:
ET> I agree that diagrams are more fundamental than words, since
their
attributes are less open to multiple interpretations. That includes
both the written and spoken word, with the latter overlaid with
meanings provided by tone and rhythm and the former open to many
misinterpretations because of the lack of both. [As we find in
email
and text messages].
The phaneron, as initially experienced, is independent of any bias.
But every step of interpreting the experience adds biases from
the individual's conscious knowledge, unconscious habits, cultural
traditions, and linguistic constraints of vocabulary, syntax, and
semantics. Those biases may be good, bad, or neutral.
As an example, the subjects for a psycholinguistic experiment
were asked to sort photographs into similar groups, according
to any grouping they considered relevant. Some of the
subjects happened to be native speakers of Yoruba, which has
a color classification that is very different from English
and other European languages.
After the subjects did their sorting, the experimenter said
"Think in Yoruba." The subjects laughed and immediately resorted
the photographs in a completely different grouping. When they
switched from thinking in English to thinking in Yoruba, they
completely reorganized their interpretations.
And by the way, I also cc'd a note to Peirce-L, which I had sent
to Ontolog Forum with the title "Modal Logic is an Immense
Swamp". That note addresses issues about logic for which
Peirce's writings are still at the forefront of research today.
Before reading that note, I recommend the slides I cited in it:
http://jfsowa.com/talks/eswc.pdf [1]
1. For a brief overview of existential graphs, skip to slides
14 to 21 of escw.pdf.
2. For issues about mapping English (and other languages) to EGs,
see slides 21 to 35.
3. For the differences between thinking in diagrams and thinking
in words, see slides 36 to 52.
To complete the loop, I'm also cc'ing this note to Ontolog Forum.
John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List"
or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts
should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE
PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body.
More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html [2] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply
All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go
to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT
to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in
the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html [3] . ►
PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond;
and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1] http://jfsowa.com/talks/eswc.pdf
[2] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
[3] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
