[Ron]
Therefore pre-lingual societies DID have notions of truth yet they
did not have a universal concept of truth.
[Arlo]
Have to jump in here, as this touches on something that interests me greatly.
I think the use of "pre-lingual" is misleading, and if we substitute
instead "pre-semiotic" we'd see that there is no such thing as a
"pre-semiotic society", as semiosis itself derives from the
inter-subjectivity (or inter-intentionality) of two (or more)
biological agents. "Language", although by far the most ubiquitous,
is but one form semiosis takes. When we think of "language", most
still consider "words" (spoken or written), perhaps some iconography
or representational form, but mostly "speaking, reading and/or writing".
Many contemporary semioticians (consider Umberto Eco or Michael Agar)
instead argue that its better to broaden the totality of semiotic
engagements into (what Agar calls) "languaculture", which includes
semiosis occuring through art, dance, music, larger cultural
metaphors, etc. In other words, while a society can be "pre-lingual"
(in the sense of shared mediation via aural "sounds"), it can never
be "pre-semiotic" since the very notion of semiosis demands
inter-intentionality (something an isolated being simply will never
experience).
Seen this way, pre-semiotic organisms would not have any "notions of
truth", only a vague sense of "betterness" (strictly defined within
its biological reality). It was not until (going by Tomasello) the
first biological beings deep in pre-history shared an "AHA!" moment
when their evolving brains afforded them to recognize the
intentionality of "others", and not until that moment did "notions of
truth" exist.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
