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.