I am inclined to think that the perception/reason opposition is about different aspects of knowledge, both of which serve as grounds. Perception (the -- revisable -- set of signs of the external) gives us meaning whereas reason allows us to connect these contents together, evaluate them, and so on. I don't see that either is more basic.
I agree with Edwina about the role of language -- somewhat constraining but not fully constraining or determining. Linguistic creativity is well documented. I have a somewhat Peircean theory of it in Informal Pragmatics and Linguistic Creativity, South African Journal of Philosophy, 2014 that grounds it in a particular type of abduction. Abduction allows us to break through apparent constraints, whether from language, perception or our current intentionality.
John
At 03:00 PM 2014-06-03, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I haven't been following this thread that closely so may be misinterpreting and misunderstanding the argument, but I have a few concerns about Gary Moore's comments:
I don't agree that the primary basis of knowledge is perception; I think that the primary basis of experience is perception but the primary basis of knowledge is reason. And reason is innate, in various forms, to all that is living. Even a plant 'reasons' in that it analyzes what it experiences (the amount and type of water and nutrients in the soil, sunlight, other plants, attacking insects etc) and then, makes decisions (reasons) based on that input data.
I don't think that language is 'forcibly taught' - perhaps that is an unfortunate choice of words. Symbolic semiosis is basic to our species and so, language is basic to our species. We aren't forcibly taught it; we have an innate capacity and need to function within symbolic semiosis, i.e., within language. That is obvious in the fact that all peoples over the world have developed language.
Most certainly, language, but in a minor way, constrains us, but I reject the old analytic framework of sociolinguistics by such as Bernstein, Whorf, etc, who insisted that how we think is defined by the limits and structures of our language. I disagree, for empirical evidence shows us that language is alive; it changes. Not merely the words change but the grammar changes. It is interesting that ancient Chinese put the verb at the end of the sentence (subject/object/verb) while modern Chinese, like English and other western languages (as distinct also from Latin), inserts the verb between the subject and object. I won't go into details here; my point is only that languages are dynamic and flexible in both grammar and vocabulary. Plus, we 'think', not merely in words but in images - and can even find it difficult to 'put words to it'!
Edwina
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Gary Moore
- To: Søren Brier ; Helmut Raulien ; [email protected] ; John N. Deely
- Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 4:43 PM
- Subject: Re: SV: SV: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
- Anyone can respond. This is not personal confrontation but the dialectic of philosophy. I am the all-knowing observer. I cannot know through a Platonic other (SOPHIST) knowing exactly what I know. As with Plato and any other legitimate philosopher the primary basis of knowledge is perception as in the Missouri state motto Show me where if you cannot show me it has no knowledgibility. This is the Scholastic ens reale, phenomenology if you will, NOT INTUITION, as even Thomas Aquinas understood human perception is inevitably COMPROMISED by linguistic and logical structures which fall under the Scholastic classification ens rationis which literally meant nothing to them. Why nothing? Because, as bluntly as is humanly possible, reason perceptually shows nothing, the primary basis of knowledge. Ergo, reason is a secondary and derived basis of knowledge from literally MY perception since that is the only possible perception I can know. Ergo, As the only knower literally seeing perceptually, I am the all-knowing observer. It is hardly precarious since anyone necessarily assumes this as true in everyday life and in all intellectual life though it is much easier to put it into obscuring words and purportedly analyze something that is all too open and evident to be analyzed. Ergo, when someone like Luhmann looks, there literally is no looking at all but simply verbal analyses of analyses of analyses of . . . . ad infinitum. I am the sole existing environment under which all other knowledge is subordinated. You knowing is a sub-category of my experience. I cannonly know you through your words, and I suppose the same for you assuming your mind is similar to my mind. Ergo, then, necessarily, I am also the thirdness of the looked-at system since, if the system is literally perceived (and not merely assumed to be perceived as you verbally explain it) then only I can do the perceiving that you have no part of except by my report. However, you are perfectly right about interpenetration but this comes from the language you were forcibly taught as an infant and from then on continuously re-educated is a million different way, good and bad, correctly and incorrectly, from experience. Ergo, you are constantly coerced by language as if it were a real entity (as society? as a teacher? any person in authority?) forcing you to do its will. You cannot assume language to be an object you can scientifically analyze because all the scientific tools of analysis are created by language will all their motivations primarily derived from anonymous language (possibly with some secondary adjustment from your point of view), but with all the rules of grammar and logic always already set in place for you by language. Ergo, the only real problem is: What is language?
- On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:08 PM, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote:
- Dear Helmut (and Phyllis) and list
- Here is the simplified model I am cultivating these days as an alternative to pure constructivism, to Snows two cultures and positivisms unity science and its present form in info-computationalism looks like this, where you have the self-organizing semiotic system in the middle producing signification based on it embodied perceptual encounters with reality. Thus Secondness experiences are through abduction (red arrows going towards the center) producing meaningful signs for aspects of reality (red arrows going away from the center). As Deely says a sign may be an idea, a mythical or religious or a material object. The signs are our primary reality (pure objectivity) drawn out of the phaneron by abduction and that may be species induced, culturally induced or personal embodied induced (what Bourdieu calls Habitus) and then they are tested pragmaticistic through science when possible. But it can also be an intersubjective sharing of experiences as in the Neglected argument. An argument for the general semiotic logic in coming to that hypothesis in free musement.
![[]]()
- Cheers
- Søren
- Fra: Helmut Raulien [ mailto:[email protected]]
- Sendt: 3. juni 2014 18:11
- Til: [email protected]
- Emne: Aw: SV: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
- Dear Soren,
- that looks like a Salthean hierarchy, but which kind, is it a specification hierarchy?. No, I until now have thought, that semiotics and systems theory was the outer layer, because I dont know, what cybersemiotics is, but now I have ordered your book at Amazon and am eager to read it. I first had ordered it at the bookstore, but then they said that they would deliver at the end of june, so I have cancelled that. I think, the old edition is sold out, and the next is not yet printed.
- Best,
- Helmut
- Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juni 2014 um 17:29 Uhr
- Von: "Søren Brier" <[email protected]>
- An: "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]>, "[email protected] " <[email protected] >
- Betreff: SV: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
- Dear Helmut
- Have you thought of things this way?
![Slide1]()
- Søren
- Fra: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]]
- Sendt: 3. juni 2014 14:57
- Til: [email protected]
- Emne: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
- Dear Gary,
- Of course, Stephen should answer this question, because the headline is from him, but I say something too, because this question is relevant in systems theories, that are often subsumed under "ontology". Ontology suggests an all-knowing observer. This is a precarious thing to suggest, so for example Luhmann also looks at the "interpenetration" of two systems in two ways: One time the one is the system and the other environment, and the other time vice versa. So, when there are many systems, all having something to do with each other, one will have to look at each of them with each at a time being the interpreting system (the subject, the observer). The systems means for interpretation is the thirdness (structure) of the looked-at system. Here I already have mixed in some Peirce terminology, Luhmann rather calls it interpenetration and structural coupling. But i am not a Luhmann expert now, I will have to read some more first.
- Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juni 2014 um 11:35 Uhr
- Von: "Gary Moore" <[email protected]>
- An: "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "John N. Deely" <[email protected]>
- Betreff: Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
- What determines what "real world" is, and what is the basis of the authority of that "what" and how is it established?
- On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 4:07 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
- Hi Stephen,
- for me systems theory is very attractive, because I think, that it opens a way of reflection of why things are the way they are. And when people see that, they can take measures to change things they do not like. Luhmann says, that systems act intentionally, draw distinctions between themselves and their environment, and reenter these distinctions into themselves. And for social systems the people are environment. So, social systems distinguish also between people and sort them out. I think, that can be called discrimination, and for the sorted out ones it is oppression. Though Lumann always took care to be non-normative and non-humanist, I think, that his theory can be used for humanism, ie. for emancipation from the systems dictate. Social systems are much less rigid than other systems: One can define the structure and extension of a social system he or she wants to be in. With the communication system of one self (mind, body, mind related behaviour) this is not so. So, I see great hope in systems theory, it can be for example like a therapy even to overcome the influence of the primal nurturer. So, because I think, that oppression is reality, I agree with feminism too (except the mentioned anti-instinct-party). That is because I think, that there still is a lot more misogyny than misandry in the world: I even would call myself a feminist, if I knew, whether I could do that, not being a woman. I think, Luhmanns theory can be combined with Peirces very well. My choice for systems theory rather than for developmental psychology is based on the fact, that it is less frustrating and thus more fun for me. But that is just my way, I do not like astrology either, for example, because it is too determining, and therefore creepy to me. Systems are creepy too, but only until they are understood, I hope.
- Best regards,
- Helmut
- Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juni 2014 um 08:37 Uhr
- Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]>
- An: "'Helmut Raulien'" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
- Betreff: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
- Hi Helmut,
- It seems that we are more or less on the same page... yes, the problem IS a systemic one. I say "more or less" because I do not subscribe to the notion of instinct (as genetically determined) at all. My own thesis is that it is ALL mind-stuff in humans and non-humans and this establishes an important relationship between the cultural known and the cultural unknown (to which gender roles are related). But I digress.
- People need to resist the "oppression narrative" because that is not a principle relevant to how cultures work. "Knowing how to be" is a much more important mechanism. It wires brains. And 90% of a human brain's wiring is said to be accomplished within the first four years of life. Clearly, this time period falls well within the influence of the primary nurturer. It is the primary nurturer that first establishes the things that matter in the child's rapidly developing brain. Thus the primary nurturer's role is particularly important from the perspective of pragmatism.
- Consider the potential for how invisible the primary nurturer's role can be in first defining the things that matter. It establishes the givens in our minds. Men are providers, women are provided-for. "Its just how it is" goes the given. It is the fact that is accepted at face value and promulgated every time mom buys Jenny a doll and Johnny a toy truck. And as Jenny and Johnny grow up and attend school, their "givens" are looking for a cause, and that's where feminism comes in. "The provider/provided-for roles matter... but don't blame poor mom, she's just an innocent stay-at-home."
- The oppression narrative is a childish, solipsistic one that has no place in any intelligent conversation. A living system (culture) is comprised of many agents, and everyone is an accomplice in how culture evolves.
- Indeed, consider the domestic violence propaganda that is hitting the mainstream media in many countries. It's the same, one-dimensional narrative of man-versus-woman. But what about the children? What about the child abuse to which children are first exposed, and in which women are the primary perpetrators? The man-versus-woman narrative ignores the original source of the violence that a child first learns from their primary nurturer.
- sj
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]]
- Sent: Monday, 2 June 2014 8:05 PM
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
- Dear Stephen, List,
- I think, that misogyny and misandry have systemic reasons: A human body is secondness of two (or more) systems: The thinking/communication system, in which the mind is thirdness (structure), and the self and species preserving system, in which epigenes and genes are the structure (genes being a superstructure for the self preserving subsystem, because they cannot be changed within one person). Now these two systems have two separate firstnesses (behaviours): The mind controlled behaviour and the instinctive (eg. sexual) behaviour. Now, in a mind focussed society, especially when it has a God associated merely with logos and mind, people are scared, when they, observing their own behaviour, see, that there is a part of their own behaviour which is not controlled by the holy mind. Now the psychological mechanisms defence and projection are at hand: The slightly stronger (with regards to communication) group (men) apply these mechanisms on the slightly weaker (off-times due to pregnancy and intensive child care) group (women). Women are said to be the reason for this scary thing, easily being obsessed by the devil, and to be the ones to stone in case of adultry. Best to keep them in the kitchen. But women who fight against this patriarchalism often also defend and project the instincts: Some say, that sexuality is an instrument of power men use to opress women. This anti-instinct fraction within feminism make the same mistakes, men have made, and are misandric. So I think, that the solution to all this might be, that women and men together analyze all this by systems theory, see, that the bogeyman is neither the women nor the men, but the logic of systems, and discuss what to do. The good news in this thread of reasoning is: The ground (bogeyman) for misandry/misogyny is not cultural tradition (which is said hard to overcome), but systems logic. With this we can cope easily, once we have uncovered its mechanisms.
- Best,
- Helmut
- Gesendet: Montag, 02. Juni 2014 um 07:53 Uhr
- Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]>
- An: [email protected]
- Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
- Greetings everyone
- The ultimate test of a successful paradigm is its ability to provide
- real-world solutions to real-world problems. My posts on AVFM do not
- specifically spell out semiotic or cybernetic or systems-theoretical
- principles, but they are there, always informing me of the interweaved
- layers of meaning that are ultimately bound together into a cultural whole.
- There is a paradigm-shift in the making. In this spirit, I provide my latest
- contribution:
- http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-violence/the-misandry-behind-m
- isogyny/
- As you could imagine, these ideas are heretical to the Church of the
- Establishment and its followers:
- http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/dont-let-them-silence-us-international-
- conference-on-mens-issues/
- History repeats. Does it, or what?
- Stephen Jarosek
- Budapest, Hungary
- +36 20 5168350
- -----------------------------
- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
- -----------------------------
- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
- -----------------------------
- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
- ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
- ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
- -----------------------------
- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
- -----------------------------
- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Professor John Collier [email protected]
Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa
T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031
Http://web.ncf.ca/collier
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
