Gary Moore - interesting point. My comments are interlinked below with yours. -----
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? THIRD ET: No, I disagree; I don't think that symbolic referencing is an extremely simple process ..that dogs can understand. I'm not speaking of the simple semiological 'this' stands for 'that' - and even that is limited within the capacity of a dog. A dog can understand 'ball' refers to 'that round thing' but it can't generate a term, any term, for 'that round thing' nor can it use it within a sentence, eg, "Balls are three dimensional circles'...and certainly, could only react to ONE of the words in that five-word sentence. Uniformity of a community is not necessarily a desirable attribute of a community. Certainly, uniformity is a basic requirement for stability and continuity and this is vital within a community or it risks losing its capacity to maintain its knowledge base, but, a community must enable a certain amount of deviation, or it has no capacity to evolve and adapt...IF evolving and adaptation are desirable traits for this community. In much of the pre-industrial world, change was not a desired attribute. Once the population reached threshold levels, technological change was vital, or those population sizes could not be maintained; the only way to enable technological change was to allow for individual deviation from the norm. 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? THIRD ET: I think the FACT that all human societies have developed language is evidence enough for its innateness to the species. I don't think any experimentation needs to be carried out, for the hundred thousand years of our species and the thousands upon thousands of languages - is evidence in itself. Add to that the fact that our human species adds other modes of symbolization to its lifestyle: painting, including painting of the body; body decorations; art, music, dance, rituals, belief systems about 'where we come from'; belief systems about superior powers (gods, spirits)....All of that is evidence, I think, for an innate capacity for symbolization. -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? THIRD ET: Hmm. Well, I've tried, as noted, suggesting: How about five minutes of silence now...but no young child can even figure out what five blessed minutes is. Eventually, most parents/grandparents kind of 'tune out' the chatter. BUT, I certainly recall telling my children when they may NOT talk (in a restaurant, at a sad event etc) but that is part of socialization of the child. And good parenting, I think, is teaching 'manners', such as 'please and thankyou' (I insist on this with my grandchildren!)...and so on. -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? THIRD ET: Well, perhaps 'formless' isn't a correct term. A child is curious and wants to know; that's part of being part of the world, of being alive and interactive with the world. As for a child being told, eg, to wash their hands before a meal - I'm not used to a response of 'Why should I do it at all'....but IF that happened, I'd give a short talk about germs and cleanliness. 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. THIRD ET: I'm not sure of what you mean by this. If you do not look after your children, then, the society, in the form of their authorities, will arrest you. Do you object to the society ensuring that its members are looked after? I'm not sure what you mean by: "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." If the child dies by parental actions, then of course the society will intervene. Do you have a problem with this? I don't think that the phrase 'looked-after' should be muddled up and mixed with harmful actions and abuse. 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
