Jim,
I'd be the first to characterize the reports on the
feral children as "iffy." But have you read the account of
"Genie"? She was a California child who was kept in isolation
in an upstairs room, strapped for hour to a potty (whether I spell it with a
"Y" or an "IE," it doesn't look right) chair because her father was
ashamed of her because of some deficit he assigned to her hip. I was
fortunate enough to be in Arizona when the World Health Organization had
its convention there, and it featured an early report on
Genie by the psychologist who was also a foster-family member for
her. There followed a book by the language therapist, Susan
Curtiss, who worked with Genie. As I recall, it was
titled Genie. The professionals describing Genie's
behavior and progress--or lack of it--are remarkably similar to the lay
reports of "feral" children. I think there is a time frame for language
learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Bill,
I think you are probably right about there being a
critical period for the acquisition of language. And I appologize for
the flip tone of my comments on impaired children and those who care
about them. Everyone is precious and I admire those who are devoted
to helping others. Even while being a bit of a self centered SOB
myself.
I think you are also right about the dangers of a
world view that doesn't repect the individual. However I'm
not convinced that a high regard for what we all have in common (or mostly in
common), is to blame for Mao's or Hitler's horrific
conduct. I think these folks suffered from a degenerate form of respect
for the individual -- the only individuals they respected were
themselves and to a lesser degree those others in whom they saw a reflection
of themselves. I think they lacked a respect for humanity in general as
well as for most other individuals. I think both the individual and
the group are worthy of respect. We are individuals and members of
a species. Neither aspect of us can survive without the
other. I think I my earlier post was unbalanced.
I just reread your comments below. I don't think
preaching humility equates with condoning murder. Or that non westerners
lack a concern for individual suffering. I think the key to peaceful
relations is respect for others -- individually and collectively.
Westerner and non westerner alike. Still, to conclude on a balanced
note -- I agree that I went too far in the direction of stressing our
commonality in my last post. And that your comments here are awelcome
corrective (intended as such or not).
Thanks Bill for another interesting informative and
fun post.
Jim Piat
--------------------
As for your post, it wasn't my intention to provide
any form of corrective; I'm not competent to do that. I was simply
noting my response to the discussion and saying that Peirce's "laws" made
sense to me. However, I will question this statement in your
response: "I attribute the sometimes horrors we do not to common sense
but to a degenerate form of representation that tries to treat
the relational symbolic world as comprised of discrete
unrelated things." One of the strong-holds of the unitive
world-view you seem to prefer has been the traditional Orient, where
life has historically been cheaper than dirt and mass exterminations
of humans nearly routine. A modern example is Maoist purges
and the rape and pillage of Tibet. Mao and Stalin each surpassed
Hitler's atrocities. I would argue that it is the traditional
value of the autonomous individual by the western world which causes us
angst over an atrocity that would not raise an eyebrow even today in some "all
is one" parts of the world. Where all is one, no aspect of the
whole is of much consequence. For the human to assume responsibility is
an act of hubris. Isn't that the message of the Bhagavad
Gita? So kill away, oh nobly born, and forget this
conscience thing, an obvious lapse into ego.
Bill
Bailey
---