Yes Gary R,
I agree with the idea that music proceeded spoken language and some
related ideas you mentioned. The idea that humans invented music is a human
conceit. We only discovered it already in the air. Credit should go to
songbirds, who were already singing their melodies long before humans came
along. I addressed some of these ideas in a talk in Toronto a few weeks
back. In my opinion birds helped us to come along into humankind and into
linguistic speech. A number of researchers have looked to "syntactic-like"
bird song as the closest analog to human speech rather than other
primates (Doupe
and Kuhl, 1999; Jarvis, 2004; Bolhuis et al., 2010). And they have brain
analogs to the human Broca and Wernicke areas for speech production and
recognition.
Philosopher and Sanskritologist Frits Staal claimed to have found
structural analogies between Sanskrit and bird songs, between Hindu Vedic
“Mantras and Bird Songs,” in an article he wrote with with that title. He
held that mantras, though often using linguistic language, also have
non-linguistic ritual aspects he thought chronologically predated human
language, and repetitions he traced as structurally closely analogous to
birdsong repetitions. His idea is speculative but I like the idea of
mantra-like proto-linguistic speech in human evolution, drawing from the
music already in the air, especially since many indigenous peoples know how
being aware of bird song communication is a source of deep learning,
practically as well as aesthetically.
Participation by hunter gatherers in conversations with the wild
others through close attunement, wherein the wild others were treated as
potential teachers, involved learning sophisticated levels of
communication. As master tracker and naturalist Jon Young has shown in his
book, *What the Robin Knows*, songbird calls in the woods can act as a kind
of radar, indicating movements of creatures a kilometer or two away. The
calls are echoed out from the source area, like a stone thrown in a pond.
Other species, such as deer, also understand these calls. And hunter
gatherer humans do as well, though settled and civilized peoples fall away
from immersion in it. These calls can indicate location and approximate
size of prey or a predator, and so are not only good for survival, but are
also beautiful.
Participating in the conversation not only as a listener, but as a
maker of calls through mimicry, can be a way to hunt birds and other
species who pursue birds as prey. Suzanne Langer had some interesting ideas
on dance and origins of language, but she was too locked in the
human-centered perspective, in my view, to appreciate the central place of
the wild others as revered teachers worthy of reverence, mimicry, and even
sources for identity.
Gene Halton
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 6:04 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Gene, Mary, Daniel, List,
>
> I also agree that spoken language precedes written language.
>
> There are even some philosophers and scientists who have suggested that
> perhaps *music* preceded spoken language.
>
> You recently mentioned, Gene, and I recall studies I read long ago which
> suggested that response to music and vocal imitative play with the mother
> occurs long before a baby begins to develop any of the other of the human
> 'intelligences' (cf. Gardner's multi-intelligence model) such as speech or
> being able to walk!
>
> The American aesthetician and philosopher of Mind, Susanne Langer, argued
> that while music isn't actually a language (in her ground breaking 1942
> work, *Feeling and Form: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and
> Art*, she refers to it an "unconsummated symbol"), yet music bears some
> interesting structural similarities to music.
>
> "Music, like language, is an articulate form. Its parts not only fuse
> together to yield a greater entity, but in so doing they maintain some
> degree of separate existence, and the sensuous character of each element is
> affected by its function in the complex whole. . [it] is *articulated*,
> i.e. its internal structure is given to our perception.
>
> "Music has *import*, and this import is the pattern of sentience — the
> pattern of life itself, as it is felt and directly known."
>
> The "sensuous characters" affected by the whole 'composition' is present
> in the simplest ditty, child's song, or lullaby.
> In the mid-50's, in *Mind: An Essay in Human Feeling*, she hypothesized
> that music might have worked in tandem with ritual dance and ecstatic
> vocalizing to have created the first vocal symbols. Perhaps in some
> ecstatic communal dance associated with some significant recurring event
> affecting human physiology and feeling, one known as doing so by a tribal
> community--the hypothetical example which Langer gives, as I recall, is how
> the moon affects a woman's menstrual cycle, the tides, etc.--certain
> ecstatically uttered sounds, perhaps first vocalized loudly by a tribal
> leader or shaman in a tribal dance, became associated with that shaman's
> utterance, was repeated by the community, and became their word for 'moon'.
>
>
> On the "significance of music" Langer wrote:
>
> Let us therefore call the significance of music its “vital import” instead
> of “meaning,” using “vital” . . . as a qualifying adjective restricting the
> relevance of “import” to the dynamism of subjective experience.
>
> Some have gone even deeper into the science involved in such a theory. One
> example is the cognitive scientist, Mark Changizi, in his book,
> *Harnessed*. From the publisher's blurb
>
> In *Harnessed,* cognitive scientist Mark Changizi demonstrates that human
> speech has been very specifically “designed” to harness the sounds of
> nature, sounds we’ve evolved over millions of years to readily understand.
> Long before humans evolved, mammals have learned to interpret the sounds of
> nature to understand both threats and opportunities. Our speech—regardless
> of language—is very clearly based on the sounds of nature.
>
>
> Langer's work in this area has been largely neglected, while Changizi's
> remains controversial.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary
>
>
> Even more fascinating, Changizi shows that music itself is based on
> natural sounds. Music—seemingly one of the most human of inventions—is
> literally built on sounds and patterns of sound that have existed since the
> beginning of time.
> ccc
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
> *718 482-5690*
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:47 PM Eugene Halton <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I also agree. To twist Ernst Haeckel's saying: ontology does not
>> recapitulate philology, contra Derrida.
>> Gene H
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 3:20 PM Mary Libertin <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree. With you, and with my interpretation of Sternfeldt.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:18 PM Daniel L Everett <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Derrida is completely wrong. Both phylogenetically and ontogenetically.
>>>> Besides doing field research on Amazonian languages that lack any form of
>>>> writing, I have written extensively on language evolution. I have heard
>>>> Derrida’s unfortunate claim before.
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307386120/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0307386120
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/How-Language-Began-Humanitys-
>>>> Invention/dp/0871407957
>>>>
>>>> Dan Everett
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 13, 2018, at 16:40, Mary Libertin <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jon A S and list,
>>>>
>>>> I find this discussion interesting. I have no thesis, instead just some
>>>> observations for possible discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Peirce in EP 2:488, as previously quoted, writes that the
>>>> tinge/tone/mark precedes the token/type. Are three senses possibly being
>>>> alluded to: sight, sound, and touch?
>>>>
>>>> In regard to the sound and touch, I recall Peirce’s use of the utterer
>>>> and the graphist.
>>>>
>>>> The latter two suggest more agency. Saussure discussed the
>>>> signifier/signified relation in terms of the phoneme and speech, and rarely
>>>> the grapheme and writing. Speech can not be removed or erased, and it
>>>> assumes permanence with quote marks.
>>>>
>>>> Derrida argued the grapheme preceded the phoneme, the written vs the
>>>> spoken. How relevant that is remains to be seen. Frederick Sternfelt in the
>>>> title of his insightful book _Diagrammatology_ makes implicit reference to
>>>> Derrida’s _Grammatology_, whose work is given short shrift. It may be that
>>>> preceed-ence is not an issue with the decisign, or not relevant.
>>>>
>>>> I do recall Peirce using tinge with regard to existential graphs, and
>>>> tinges perhaps served a purpose, perhaps with reference to layering and
>>>> juxtaposition in logic, that could not achieved with the spoken or written.
>>>>
>>>> It may be possible that Peirce ultimately chose mark rather than tinge
>>>> or tone because it is more permanent.
>>>>
>>>> I apologize for lacking a thesis and any mistakes, and I look forward
>>>> to your responses.
>>>>
>>>> Mary Libertin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John S., List:
>>>>>
>>>>> JFS: I believe that the subject line blurs too many issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a direct quote from Peirce (EP 2:303; 1904), and the point of
>>>>> the thread is to explicate it.
>>>>>
>>>>> JFS: Since mark is his final choice, I'll use mark instead of tinge
>>>>> or tone.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the referenced passage, Peirce stated, "I dare say some of my
>>>>> former names are better than those I now use" (EP 2:488; 1908). In fact,
>>>>> less than two weeks earlier, he had asked Lady Welby specifically about
>>>>> Tone vs. Mark (SS 83; 1908); and if I remember right--I do not have a copy
>>>>> of her reply--she found Tone preferable because a tone of voice is a
>>>>> paradigmatic example. Peirce also used Tone in what I think is one of his
>>>>> clearest passages about this division of Signs (CP 4.537; 1906).
>>>>>
>>>>> JFS: General principle: In any occurrence of semiosis, there is
>>>>> always a perceptible mark that is interpreted by some mind or quasi-mind
>>>>> as
>>>>> a token of some type.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This may be a case of hair-splitting on my part, but I would suggest
>>>>> instead that in any Instance of a Sign, the Tone is the character (or set
>>>>> of characters) by which the interpreting Quasi-mind recognizes the
>>>>> Sign-Replica to be an individual Token of the Type. Acquaintance with the
>>>>> system of Signs (Essential Information) is necessary and sufficient for
>>>>> this. It is analogous to the role of the Immediate Object as that by
>>>>> which
>>>>> the interpreting Quasi-mind identifies the Dynamic Object of the Sign, for
>>>>> which Collateral Experience (Experiential Information) is necessary and
>>>>> sufficient (cf. CP 8.179, EP 2:494; 1909).
>>>>>
>>>>> As a Possible, the Tone can only have an Immediate Interpretant--"its
>>>>> peculiar Interpretability before it gets any Interpreter." As an
>>>>> Existent,
>>>>> the Token is what produces the Dynamic Interpretant--"that which is
>>>>> experienced in each act of Interpretation." As a Necessitant, only the
>>>>> Type has a Final Interpretant--"the one Interpretative result to which
>>>>> every Interpreter is destined to come if the Sign is sufficiently
>>>>> considered," which corresponds to the correct Habit of Interpretation
>>>>> (Substantial Information). In other words, "The Immediate Interpretant is
>>>>> an abstraction, consisting in a Possibility. The Dynamical Interpretant is
>>>>> a single actual event. The Final Interpretant is that toward which the
>>>>> actual tends" (SS 111; 1909).
>>>>>
>>>>> JFS: In summary, semiosis turns real possibilities into real
>>>>> actualities.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, and would add that semiosis also governs Real actualities in
>>>>> accordance with Real regularities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>>>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>>>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:15 AM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that the subject line blurs too many issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In various writings over the years, Peirce wrote about
>>>>>> real possibilities. He also wrote about laws as real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In writing about modality, he distinguished three universes:
>>>>>> the possible, the actual, and the necessitated. Actual
>>>>>> existence is just one of the three ways of being real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He also distinguished logical possibility and necessity
>>>>>> from real possibility and necessity. A theory is logically
>>>>>> possible if it's consistent by itself. It's a real possibility
>>>>>> if it's also consistent with the laws of nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the above, apply the principles to signs. For that,
>>>>>> consider Peirce's Letters to Lady Welby in 1908, in which
>>>>>> he wrote about signs and the three universes (EP 2:478-480).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In EP 2:488, he wrote that the triad Potisign (possible sign) /
>>>>>> actisign (sign in act) / and famisign (familiar or general sign)
>>>>>> might be called (tinge or tone or mark) / token / type. Since
>>>>>> mark is his final choice, I'll use mark instead of tinge or tone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> General principle: In any occurrence of semiosis, there is
>>>>>> always a perceptible mark that is interpreted by some mind or
>>>>>> quasi-mind as a token of some type.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prior to semiosis, the perceptible thing exists in actuality.
>>>>>> But it's only a possible mark. It doesn't become an actual mark
>>>>>> until it is sensed by some mind or quasi-mind. Then as soon as
>>>>>> it's recognized, the actual mark becomes an actual token of some type.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In summary, semiosis turns real possibilities into real actualities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> null
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------
>>>> 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 .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> null
>>>
>>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 .
