Clark - you wrote:
"To me the big issue were common structures in the environment privileging
certain interpretations making either diffusion or common mind unnecessary.
(Much like certain structures evolve independently in nature due to the
environment)"
EDWINA: - Agree up to a point. That is, I agree with the 'common structures in
the envt privileging certain interpretations'...and diffusion is unnecessary
(and often impossible due to continental isolation)...but..I think that 'common
mind' is a reality. Otherwise, there could be multipe interpretations. That is,
I don't see the human behaviour as entirely dependent on the envt; rather, the
human behaviour is based on being logical adaptations to environmental
realities. I insert that 'logical adaptation'.
So, it is interesting for example to see that populations that were
agricultural economies, that relied on irrigation to bring water to crops,
developed large populations AND also, some form of mnemonic memory technology
(some form of symbolic script or technique) to keep records. This was not
emergent via diffusion (India, China, Egypt, Aztec, Inca)...Also, all developed
a hierarchical authority and 'god-kings' infrastructure....
----- Original Message -----
From: Clark Goble
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best
Morality)
On Oct 17, 2015, at 6:42 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
Stephen J - yes, the spread of a belief/ behaviour by imitation has been
proposed by some researchers in human society - for a long time. It certainly
didn't start with Dawkins and his 'memes'. But criticism of this has been quite
strong; that is, such an approach, that defines cultures as created by
diffusion and copying from each other, 1) ignores the functionality of the
belief/behaviour and assumes that ALL people find ALL beliefs/behaviour
functional; 2) it ignores the concept that beliefs/behaviour are rational
adaptations to local economic and ecological realities; and 3) ignores the
commonality of the biology of humans, in that the common need for language, the
family unit, maintenance of long-term modes of behaviour - are biological
aspects of the species. ..and 4) ignores those societies which have common
modes of behaviour but have never been in touch with another similar group.
In other words - the mimesis-diffusion explanation for human culture has
been heavily criticized long before Dawkin's reductionist memes.
This goes back to the heydays of structuralism - especially in psychology.
There appeared to be two main schools. Some saw the structures as inherent to
humans due to a kind of shared mind (often based upon the metaphor or outright
embrace of the Platonic Nous). Others saw these more in terms of diffusion of
ideas.
The problem was that often those pointing to these structures downplayed
differences, made narratives fit into categories by distorting them, etc.
(Campbell of course got a lot of justifiable criticism along these lines) To me
the big issue were common structures in the environment privileging certain
interpretations making either diffusion or common mind unnecessary. (Much like
certain structures evolve independently in nature due to the environment)
With regards to Peirce, while he was alive when these ideas were developing,
I think his system of thought was able to deal with them fare superior to what
went on in the 20th century. Part of that was by having a semiotic more robust
than how the received Saussure view approached things. (I’m aware of those who
say Saussure had views more complicated than those usually portrayed - but as
with Descartes there’s something useful in using the name as a shorthand for a
set of views)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
