The topic of feral children (children raised by animals, e.g., the Wild Boy of Aveyron) is relevant to this topic... as well as that of the domestication of animals, given that domestication reverses the feral condition to which animals are naturally (without human intervention) predisposed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child Relates to the question of “knowing how to be”, pragmatism, phenomenology. Anthropocentric "specialness" has been a millstone around our necks, and has us stumbling like a drunk from one religion (Judaeo-Christian) to another (scientism). Semiotic theory has within it the basis for a Copernican style of revolution, methinks. sj From: Gary Fuhrman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 4 June 2014 2:16 PM To: Peirce List Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems Gary M. et al., It’s apparently true that “A child absolutely left on its own will never have language beyond Umberto Eco's "Latratus canis". But it’s not necessarily true that “It is someone already knowledgeable in communicative human language that must teach them.” Children who interact mainly with other children their own age have been known to develop their own languages ‘from scratch’ with no instruction from adults -- languages sufficient to enable them to communicate (with each other) and reason at a high level. This sometimes happens with twins in spite of their parents’ efforts to teach them the language of the home. The origin of language is a very deep and still controversial question, but I think recent research has emphasized the evolutionary continuity between human mentality (including communication and reasoning) and the mentality of other animals. One book I’d recommend on this is The Origins of Meaning (Language in the Light of Evolution) by James R. Hurford (2007). It’s one of Stjernfelt’s sources in his new book, and it brings together logic, linguistics, psychology and evolutionary biology in a remarkable way that strikes me as quite Peircean although he doesn’t mention Peirce. (Sorry, folks, there’s that word again … ) gary f. } Tiger got to hunt, Bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, Why, why, why? Tiger got to sleep, Bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand. [The Books of Bokonon (Vonnegut)] { www.gnusystems.ca/gnoxic.htm }{ gnoxics From: Gary Moore [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 4-Jun-14 6:12 AM To: John Collier; Edwina Taborsky; Søren Brier; [email protected] Subject: Re: SV: SV: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems If you could not see, could you reason? Yes - but - with much greater difficulty because the whole apparatus of education is based upon being able to see. This is one of the reasons why the Classical Greek word "to know" also means "to see". <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%5B&la=greek&can=%5B0> [980 <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a&la=greek&can=a0&prior=%5b> α <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%5D&la=greek&can=%5D0&prior=a> ] <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%5B&la=greek&can=%5B1&prior=%5d> [21 <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%5D&la=greek&can=%5D1&prior=%5b> ] <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pa%2Fntes&la=greek&can=pa%2Fntes0&prior=%5d> πάντες <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29%2Fnqrwpoi&la=greek&can=a%29%2Fnqrwpoi0&prior=pa/ntes> ἄνθρωποι <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tou%3D&la=greek&can=tou%3D0&prior=a)/nqrwpoi> τοῦ <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ei%29de%2Fnai&la=greek&can=ei%29de%2Fnai0&prior=tou=> εἰδέναι <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=o%29re%2Fgontai&la=greek&can=o%29re%2Fgontai0&prior=ei)de/nai> ὀρέγονται <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=fu%2Fsei&la=greek&can=fu%2Fsei0&prior=o)re/gontai> φύσει."All men by nature desire to know/see." Ergo, in initial 'practical' practice on all occasions knowledge begins with seeing. With blind people, it begins with the teacher being able to see. An exactly similar situation exists with language. A child absolutely left on its own will never have language beyond Umberto Eco's "Latratus canis". It is someone already knowledgeable in communicative human language that must teach them. All human education is inherited. Ergo there is always the first question disposing the whole nature and mystery of language, "How and why did language at all, as communicative beyond the barking of a dog, occur?" -x- In going beyond "latratus canis", perception does become involved with signs, but this is a learned activity and integration, not the pure physiology of visual perception which must temporally and causally come first. Physiologically, then, can perception be a system of signs? Or, are you saying "reason" is a physiological human attribute?
----------------------------- 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 .
