1] 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. -x- THIRD GCM: So “symbolic referencing” necessary infers “generating a term” to be “used within a sentence”. That seems extremely anthropocentric but in that context you are completely correct and no more needs be said. -x- 2] 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- THIRD GCM: The question was, “How would you aseptically – without any possible hint of education from others – demonstrate “innate” human symbolization?” Your answer completely ignores the issue of what is innate and what is learned even though you yourself add on a long line of learned items demonstrating education but not any kind of innateness whatsoever. That we learn is obvious and granted. How much if this is physiological – and what form that physiology is - is very far from clear to me. 3] 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. -x- THIRD GCM: “I do not think that the phrase ‘looked-after’ should be muddled up and mixed with harmful actions and abuse.” What do you think “looked-after” means outside a purely abstract and idealized position above the fray but rather as the real view real parents can view their children with? My introduction to critical pediatric care was when a father taught his infant a lesion about crying too much by swinging it by its feet to bash its head against a wall. When I was growing up, a parent was punished for something like this only after the most drastic result occurred. In other words, one could put cigarette butts out on an infant and, then, the judge would severely punish the parent by telling them they should not do that. Nowadays, maybe that has changed because doing such leaves physical evidence. All that teaches is not to leave physical evidence. Emergency room personnel are taught to look for abuse of children but are not protected by law from prosecution by parents. You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. From what I have seen in the courts, the rule is – if there is no drastic physical result – the only place for the child is back with the family. At best, they are placed with foster parents, most of whom take these children in for the money, so that is a whole new bag of tricks. Everybody is doing what is socially and legally right. The family is preserved against all threats. The letter of the law is obeyed. This is what R. D. Laing complained about in his studies of childhood schizophrenia where the child eventually admitted abuse in the family but the court refused to accept a child’s word on the matter (or the analyst’s) and felt necessary to return the child to the family that Laing thought caused the problem in the first place. Just because the news media – society in its most idealized abstract – says good parental care, in their judgment, “should” be done does not mean that off the tv camera real family life does not go on in the shadowed background in the same way just as it has for hundreds of thousands of years. The child’s head I saw in the critical care unit before it died was perfectly clear to me and did not seem of A “muddled up” use of being “looked-after”. Can you show me how I am wrong?
----------------------------- 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 .
