|
Jim,
I'd be the first to characterize the reports on the
feral children as "iffy." But have you read the account of "Genie"?
She was a California child who was kept in isolation in an upstairs
room, strapped for hour to a potty (whether I spell it with a "Y" or an "IE," it
doesn't look right) chair because her father was ashamed of her because of
some deficit he assigned to her hip. I was fortunate enough to be in
Arizona when the World Health Organization had its convention there,
and it featured an early report on Genie by the psychologist who was
also a foster-family member for her. There followed a book by the language
therapist, Susan Curtiss, who worked with Genie. As I recall, it was
titled Genie. The professionals describing Genie's
behavior and progress--or lack of it--are remarkably similar to the lay reports
of "feral" children. I think there is a time frame for language
learning.
As for your post, it wasn't my intention to provide any
form of corrective; I'm not competent to do that. I was simply noting my
response to the discussion and saying that Peirce's "laws" made sense to
me. However, I will question this statement in your response:
"I attribute the sometimes horrors we do not to common sense but to a degenerate
form of representation that tries to treat the relational
symbolic world as comprised of discrete unrelated things." One of the
strong-holds of the unitive world-view you seem to prefer has been the
traditional Orient, where life has historically been cheaper than dirt
and mass exterminations of humans nearly routine. A modern example is
Maoist purges and the rape and pillage of Tibet. Mao and Stalin
each surpassed Hitler's atrocities. I would argue that it is the
traditional value of the autonomous individual by the western world which
causes us angst over an atrocity that would not raise an eyebrow even today in
some "all is one" parts of the world. Where all is one, no aspect of
the whole is of much consequence. For the human to assume responsibility
is an act of hubris. Isn't that the message of the Bhagavad
Gita? So kill away, oh nobly born, and forget this
conscience thing, an obvious lapse into ego.
Bill
Bailey
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 5:25
PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamental
psychological laws" is Peirce referring to?
Dear Bill,
As always I enjoyed your straightforward,
informative and wise comments. You have a way of keeping my feet on the
ground without destroying the fun of having my head in the clouds (to
pick one of the nicer places I've been accused of having my
head). I hope I did not create the impression that I devalued
any of the methods of fixing belief that Peirce described. I don't think
he intended to devalue them either. Nor did I mean to put science on a
pedestal. Not that it needs any commendation from me. I think
science is a formalization of the method of common sense which (to
borrow Joe's apt description) includes the distinctive elements
of each method. I believe that common sense is the way all
humans in all cultures have at all times represented and participated in
the world. We are all symbolic creatures and we all feel, will,
and interpret the world with symbols whether we call one
another primitive or advanced. I attribute the sometimes horrors we do not to common sense but to a
degenerate form of representation that tries to treat
the relational symbolic world as comprised of discrete
unrelated things. A form with no feeling is a phantom, an other
with no resistence does not exist and thought that does not mediate is empty
verbiage. The danger arises out of our ability
to misrepresent. We are all fundmentally alike and cut from the
same cloth. LOL--I'm of a
mind to go off on a swoon about the commonality of humanity but I fear getting
called on giving facile lip service to something I don't practice.
Oh, the feral children. Hell, I don't
even believe the accounts. Well I should say I don't believe the
labels. Most of them sound to me like accounts of severely retarded
children who have been hidden away by families. Countless severely retarded
children have grown up in relatively caring institutions with the same
outcome. But I agree with your point, IF a child could survive
past a week alone in the woods or a closet, the
child still would not develop language etc -- It's the
preposterous IF that makes me dismiss these as crack pot accounts
that have somehow emerged from the tabloids for 15 mins of manistream
press. And occassionally the attention of some devoted researcher who
ends up wanting to adopt the child. But I don't mean to be cruel.
Fact is, I don't know the detailed facts of any of these
cases. And I
digress --- unaccustomed as I am to public digressions
Best wishes,
Jim Piat
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:42
PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: What
"fundamental psychological laws" is Peirce referring to?
Jim, Joe, List:
This discussion brought to mind the comparison by
Claud Levi-Strauss of "primitive" thought and that of western science.
I think the discussion is in The Savage Mind. Levi-Strauss
argues that there is no real difference in terms of complexity between
"primitive" and scientific thought; he found the primitive's categories and
structurings in botany, for example, to be as complex as any western
textbook might offer. ---
Message from
peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.10/459 - Release Date:
9/29/2006
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
|