---- Original Message ----- From: Gary Moore To: Søren Brier ; 'Edwina Taborsky' ; Helmut Raulien ; [email protected] ; John N. Deely Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:15 AM Subject: Re: SV: SV: SV: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems 1) SECOND ET: This is, I think, a slight 'red herring'. Aside from my practical point that our species can't survive without adult interaction for some years, if we just refer to language, then, my point is that the capacity for symbolic referencing is innate within humans. The actual symbols used are provided by the community - and the child can have an adult community and a small community of his twin brother - and thus, have two languages, so to speak. But the capacity for symbolic referencing and grammatical order, is innate. -x- SECOND GCM: “Symbolic referring” is basically an extremely simple process that dogs can understand. Greater “complexity” of symbolic structure are – you are correct – “provided by the community”, ergo human “community” you demonstrate for me – and I appreciate it – is really the key human structure here. Not the size of the community – a herd of gnus puts us to shame in their uniformity – or even social structure – a pride of lions is thoroughly socially structured – but maybe rather the ability to change, adapt, and enlarge that structure? What do you think? 2] SECOND ET: Chimpanzees and dogs do not, within their species, develop symbolic communication to any extent. It is not relevant that our human species taught either a chimpanzee or a dog a symbolic reference; the point is, such is not innate to either species. -x- SECOND GCM: How would you aseptically – without any possible hint of education from others – demonstrate “innate” human symbolization? What would be the parameters of the demonstration? How would you absolutely distinguish “innate” symbolization from any kind of suggested symbolization? Could any such valid experiment even be constructed? How is “innateness” demonstrated absolutely separate from “suggested” symbolization which would necessarily corrupt the experiment? I do not know one way or the other. What do you think? -x- 2a] SECOND ET: I also strongly disagree that a child is punished if it does not speak 'more'. SECOND GCM: You have a point and I need to clarify. “More” means saying the proper thing required by the situation whereas “chatter” is unstructured. And yet in how many real life children is uninterrupted chatter tolerated? -x- 2b] SECOND ET: I also disagree that ethics exists only as taught and that the drive-to-be-ethical is not found within our societal community. -X- SECOND GCM: Is there anyone else who agrees fully and literally with that statement? -x- 2c] SECOND ET: Again, our species is a societal species and thus, must learn to recognize its members and assist them. That's not based on a pattern of punishment. -x- SECOND GCM: Again, is there anyone else that agrees fully and literally with that statement? 3) GCM: Just formless, unmotivated “curiosity” without any cause or motivation whatsoever – or it it always and in every case “curiosity” to gain something one desires? -x- 3a] SECOND ET: I think a lot of it is formless curiosity. To ask 'why are there clouds; what is a cloud; why does it rain; why are trees green...etc...that is not to 'gain something one desires'. -x- SECOND GCM: Could it be that there is a form to it – after all it is expressed correctly grammatically and logically most of the time – that one has not discovered? Also, the constant motivation to any action whatsoever is to answer “Why should I do it at all?’ (a child’s question from a child). The question of “action” is implicit in any act of knowledge, even in those that seem purely gratuitous, for their own sake, because we naturally, just like a lion, take inventory of our environment, that is, as in John N. Deely, is it favorable, unfavorable, or something indifferent? 4) SECOND ET: I think that 'basically social' is a biological component in our species. Again, that's because our knowledge base rests within the society, within the community. Therefore, to know how to do anything - whether it be to till the fields, plant seeds, filter water, raise sheep, care for someone ill - requires interaction with the knowledge base carried by others within the community. -x- SECOND GCM: But is not all of “social” and “community” structures inherited primarily from language taught, even though I agree something hard-wired must be there to “receive”, understand, and developed the full implications of what a “society” and “community” (sometimes very different things) are and “should” be? 4a] As for negative reinforcements, well, if you don't look after your animals on the farm, the negative is that your family will go hungry. I don't think that there are societal punishments for this - except within fundamentalist groups and cults, whose members live within a damaged psyche. -x- SECOND GCM: And if you do not look after your children, the authorities will arrest you. And yet when many children are “looked after” as is considered proper by the parents, the children die as a result of being “looked after” and the authorities again arrest you. I am sorry, but I do not live in the super-civilized world you live in (and I do not think very many other people do either) and have abundantly seen with my eyes the results of such being “looked after”. “Cults” account only for an insignificant percentage of such cases. This is usually the work of unrestrained normal parents. The poorer you are, the less restrained. However, just like all other criminals, they did what they thought they had a “right” to do, however they construe “right”. Only results count. 4b] SECOND ET: A parent raises a child to be a member of the community. -x- SECOND GCM: A parent raises a child to be a member of the community as they personally envision that ‘community’. How else could it be? They learn “models” of community from others but they must interpret those models within the limits of their personal perception. -x- Punishments for harming members of the community? Of course there are - if a child is stealing candies from the store, or lighting fires in the neighbour's fields, or bullying someone else...of course there are punishments. That's because in any society, not all behaviour is acceptable. Because it would disrupt the capacity of that society to survive. So, if you are in a society where 'might makes right' and the people who threaten, coerce and steal from others - well, that society will not be able to survive for long. After a while, one runs out of things to steal. Edwina/Gary C. Moore
----------------------------- 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 .
