From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 07 2005 - 20:45:48 GMT
[Case]
Call it what you will this is a theory about symbol usage and manipulation.
The behaviors I have mentioned are not governed, mediated or determined by
signs, signifiers or interpeters. All of these are after the fact.
[Arlo]
We may be splitting hairs, but I'm disagreeing with this. Give me an
example of a behavior that is not governed by signs? You could say, I
suppose, that an infant "at birth" is completely void of semiosis*. In this
state, s/he is completely "pre-intellectual". But, the MOMENT that the
earliest associations are found, between say a recognized face and a
sensation of "good", the infant is engaging in semiosis. The face of the
mother becomes an "indexical sign" representing, and causing, the indexed
meaning. The infant's response (cooing and whatnot) become "indexical
signs" to the mother, and thus even this simple interaction is dialogic in
a semiotic sense. The key with semiosis is that (1) "signs" structurate the
creation of new signs, and (2) habituated interpretation of sign reifies
that interpretation. Thus it may seem that the infant reacts
"pre-intellectually" when exposed to mother's face, but this is only the
result of habituated interpretation of an indexical sign brought on by
learned patterning, not genetic hardwiring. It is a dialogic reaction of
symbol use, not of unmediated, pre-intellectual experience which is
simplistically the "good feeling" of the moment before causality,
associations, expectation, meaning, etc. Semiotics is the very act of
assigning meaning, such as association the face of the mother with the
feeling. Pun intended.
* Here is where the argument that semiosis (or rudimentary versions of it)
are "hardwired". I still say, you'd have to find a sign that is genetically
programmed, like the dance of bees. I don't know of any that are so found
in the human population.
[Case]
All of these are after the fact. They are irrelevant to the events themselves.
[Arlo]
Semiosis is more accurately describe as the bridge between pre-intellectual
experience and conceptualized experience.
[Case]
Language and manipulation of symbols by non-human primate what fairly well
demonstrated but there was never agreement on what this meant. I would
guess that it would be transmitted from one generation to the next to the
extent that it was useful or enhanced the Quality of life among the chimps.
That is to say probably not.
[Arlo]
*IF* they had the genetic ability. Even the most "advanced" use of
semiotics in non-humans appears "primitive" by our standards. But this is,
as is being argued in another thread, perhaps a relationist statement. At
any rate, there is no general consensus in the field of semiotics as to
whether a genetic uniqueness or cultural valuation undergirds what appears
to be a species-unique depth of semiosis. Like I said, Tomasello (who wrote
The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition) took a middle ground, saying the
genetic uniqueness was something seemingly small, a neural locale for
processing "shared attention" that started the whole cultural transmission
process. However, in the language of semiosis, it appears unquestionable
that non-human species make use of indexical signs. Some may make use of
iconic signs depending on the level of abstraction between the icon and the
representasum. Symbols is where the debate comes in, as "symbols" are
wholly abstract (and often auditory) signs, such as the letters "C-A-T", or
the sound of me saying the word "cat", for the furry little animal that
purrs when you pet it, and shreds the fabric on your recliner. Most believe
his level of semiosis is unique to humans. But, I tend to think dolphins,
for one example, do make use of symbols type semiosis (at least the
auditory type).
But, it sounds along Pirsigian thinking to say that semiosis, if valued,
would emerge in non-humans. I'm just not quite sure how to explain that
after all these millions of years, the only species who found it valuable
are humans. So I think there must be some genetic constraining going on
(but again, keeping in mind that I'm not suggesting a polar "we do, they
don't", but rather a continuum of depth).
[Case]
The semiotic triad as you describe does not enter into this at all except
as a description after the fact. It plays no causal role at all and is not
particularly useful in analysizing the phenomenon. It may or may not
describe what transpires but one can envision a plethora of ways to
describe something depending on what your interest is. I still fail to see
where this is helpful.
[Arlo]
Again, disagree. If I understand you correctly. One we make the first steps
in appropriating a semiotic system, make those first rudimentary indexical
dialogues, we become predisposed, or "structurated" to interpret and
conceptual experience in certain ways. Indeed, it is a great feat to break
out of this structuration, something Koans, yoga and peyote, all attempt to
foster. It is naive to think that every moment of experience is coded
semiotically in some objective, non-cultural, non-habituated way. Take
looking at a Rembrandt (as I used in a recent example to Platt). You might
"feel" you are responding to the image "pre-intellectually", but the
"pre-intellectual response" is generated by the painting only as a result
of a prior, semiotically-mediated response. That is, it is a "cultural
trigger" to a pre-intellectual state, that must be recognized as such PRIOR
to its ability to generate such a state.
An aboriginal, lacking the cultural means to see the painting as such a
trigger, would likely not see in it anything wonderful. But, someone within
our culture, with the appropriate cultural cues, and with the appropriate
learned associations, may very well find themselves pulled into a state of
"pre-intellectual" being. But, as I've said, only if they successfully
interpret the painting as such a sign FIRST.
This is how semiosis is not just a one way path from pre-intellectual
experience to conceptualized experience, but also from conceptualized
experience back to pre-intellectual experience.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 08 2005 - 00:24:02 GMT