Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed: . . . unless I did not interpret the meaning of your post correctly.
Why do they call a spoken or written language a “symbolic language”? Why don’t they just call it simply “language?”
Saussure (later Pierce, all the way to Derrida) said that there were no 1:1 links among (i) a linguistic sign (an arbitrary cultural entity), (ii) what is signified (a conceptualization, a sign’s meaning), and (iii) what is a signifier (the sign’s image or sound physically). Any link between the signified (the meaning) and the signifier (the utterance) is arbitrary. Both the signified and signifier are concepts—subjective, psychological, and cultural.
Anthropology and aesthetics later added distinctions about signs versus symbols I referred to, initially in areas of religion. I’m extending those distinctions into other areas, especially in those areas that claim that notations are objective and hence unambiguous. IMO, they aren’t. All notations are psychologically subjective—consensually created and maintained by a community.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I have no idea what you are talking about, MikeL, I mean, really.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
All notations are psychologically subjective—consensually created and maintained by a community.
How is the consent (or consensus) created? Is there no objective input? Could you have any kind of agreement, whether "psychologically subjective" or not, without a community?
Science finds ways to simplify descriptions of complex phenomena. People have the opposite tendency, too.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
I'm not sure psyilocyborg, what a crunchy new aged hippy is ? As opposed perhaps to a squishy new aged hippy?
MileL is talking about widely recognized ideas by the way.
Meanwhile, there's a very interesting article in the NYT about the diplomats in Cuba with mysterious brain problems which have been identified with probable microwave radiation aimed at them. Microwaves it turns out, can project sounds into the part of the human brain that picks up on auditory signals causing the brain to hear things that are not perceived by the ears. It can even, and here's the scary part, project human speech into the brain. It is being developed by both Americans and Russians as the next generation of warfare (and we thought the threat was AI) ?! Anyway, a whole new level of mind problems.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/science/sonic-attack-cuba-microwave.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
MikeL isn't talking, he is communicating symbolically, and his premise is that the symbols are not what they are referring to, and as such, do not convey the message they are intended to convey, or at the very least, are open to interpretation both by the originator, and the receiver.
How do we know what MikeL is "talking" about, or Saussure or Pierce or Derrida, really? Is it just a social convention that these people have some "authority" and that they somehow are conveyed the privilege of veracity, which is also reduced to social convention?
If so, why would those ideas have any more weight than any other? It can't be because of the name dropping, could it? And in MikeL's argument, the mere fact that the symbolic nature of the communication can be viewed as propositional logic has no authority since there is no absolute way to connect the objects of the propositions to reality, except by social convention.
Thanks for the comment Jan, I know I come off as a narrow scientist who may be unaware of "widely recognized ideas."
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
"Some kind of dialogue is now going on between individual human beings and the sum total of human knowledge and nothing can stop it."
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
My comments on MikeL's comments weren't meant to be personal, merely to reiterate that his ideas are not unique to him, but widely accepted in the world of anthropology and linguistics. Next time I'll try to be more specific about that.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Nice link, MH2!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Anthropology and linguistics are academia.
Transcendental sound vibration is not academic of which gross materialists, mental speculators, material scientists, have zero clue.
The gross materialists always masquerade themselves as authority in all matters even those they are completely clueless to.
The modern gross materialists so called scientist actually are their very own obstructionists ......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Just watched Marvel's Doctor Strange for the first time.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1211837/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
It reminded me. In this age of ever increasing science fiction and religious fiction and political fiction (ala trump, eg) it's more important than ever to build up for ourselves a science edu and to stay grounded in it.
Without it, one just doesn't know what not to believe.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
It's more important than ever to build up for ourselves a science edu and to stay grounded in it.
Yes it's very important you remain in your sterile narrow minded brainwashed consciousness and masquerade yourself as authority as always ...
Just like the pope .....
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed,
There are many times, imo, when I don’t include names of different seminal thinkers because I think I can express those ideas well enough on my own. I understand them. Other times I will drop in names in case people want to look them up and read about those ideas in better articulations than what I think I provide. Since you seemed so incredulous initially to those ideas, I included those names so that you could read for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
BTW, I’d say that most everything that you expressed is eminently reasonable and do indeed follow the ideas expressed.
And no, you (nor anyone else) has to appreciate what Derrida or other postmodern writers had to say. I suspect his name brings rise to a knee-jerk reaction in you and others here (HFCS for one). “Widely accepted ideas” (as you put it) would refer to a specialized community of narrow scientists, to use your words.
Finally, the ideas are not about you; try not to take them so personally. It’s hardly objective.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I guess you, and Jan, missed my point, which is that, in spite of your argument to the contrary, you seem to be very able to communicate ideas using this symbolic system.
My "incredulity" was not referring specifically to the ideas that you were communicating, but to the very ability to express any idea.
And interestingly, you both thought I shouldn't take them personally, but you argue that I could only understand them subjectively (which is personal), that they have no objective basis in principle, at least in reductio ad absurdum.
This has been you point all along, that there is not sufficient evidence, nor could there ever be, to demonstrate that connection between the symbol and that which it refers. Therefore, the deductions we make are false when they refer to "reality."
Interestingly, this analysis of science has been somewhat popular lately, although not in the way post-modern analysis might have thought, the most notable being the criticism of climate science. Critics have pointed out that the scientists doing that research are not objective, and that their conclusions are not "true," therefore we can dismiss their claims. Science, in the mind of the critics, is just another social narrative that is ultimately equivalent to any other, thus science has no stronger claim to describing objective reality.
In the end, the culture conveys on certain individuals the role of "authorities" which can speak the "truth" on certain topics. Thus the "naming dropping" (which you took personally), which is a socially sanctioned way to make an argument. Science has argued that the only authority is nature, and that the objective study of nature can provide "truth" (albeit provisional) in a way that is independent of the practitioner.
If you don't believe climate science, you can demonstrate that it is incorrect, objectively. It's not an opinion. If you could do that, every climate scientist would agree with your conclusions. The fact that it has not been done strengthens the current understanding of that science.
Don't take it personally.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Nature is subordinate to the absolute truth.
Nature ONLY ever reveals relative truth and is always incomplete when using the material senses.
The the modern material scientists will always remain in ultimate poor fund of knowledge no matter how hard they try.
The modern gross materialists are also subordinate and do not have full independent power to go beyond without submitting to the absolute truth.
The gross materialists are arrogant and thus remain in their material consciousness in different material bodies life after life misleading themselves and their own constitutes.
Blind leading the blind masquerading as authority.......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed: This has been you point all along, that there is not sufficient evidence, nor could there ever be, to demonstrate that connection between the symbol and that which it refers. Therefore, the deductions we make are false when they refer to "reality."
No. I didn’t refer to evidence. That’s your reading as a contemporary scientist.
Second, there is no claim to falsity, deductions, or truth. The claim made by me and others is that a notation or term appears to be arbitrary and psychological linguistically.
Last, we should get clear how how nature is considered “an authority,” per se. It seems to be an anthropomorphic expression, imo. Scientifically, nature—as it seems to be operationalized—is a question of modeling, metrics, and the consensus of a specialized community. Again, the term seems arbitrary and cultural.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
and all that nice writing about metaphor...
but let me press you, are you saying it is not possible for humans to do science, per science's stated goals? that is, an objective description of reality.
I suspect you find it not possible.
How then to assess the utility of the diverse narratives? Jan says that shamanic healing is effective in various cultures, what role would western medicine play? how do we ethically accept the idea that our scientific understanding of human health may be at odds with the basis of traditional healing and that we should not pursue modern treatments?
You seem very certain when claiming the opposite.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Last, we should get clear how how nature is considered “an authority,” per se. It seems to be an anthropomorphic expression, imo. Scientifically, nature—as it seems to be operationalized—is a question of modeling, metrics, and the consensus of a specialized community. Again, the term seems arbitrary and cultural.
Yes. Please be clear. In terms that are not arbitrary or cultural.
How is nature (or Nature?) considered "an authority?"
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
MikeL wrote
Scientifically, nature—as it seems to be operationalized—is a question of modeling, metrics, and the consensus of a specialized community. Again, the term seems arbitrary and cultural.
Let's just take the metrics part of the misguided statement. What would be your problem with metrics? What you don't seem to see is how dangerous your philosophy actually is. It is the philosophy of tyrants. The Trump administration is a particularly relevant example. Your doubting of science as a "blind" arbitrator leads to might make right. The idea that there is no arbitrator at all but social convention is misguided and no better an explanation than God, IMO.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
How then to assess the utility of the diverse narratives? Jan says that shamanic healing is effective in various cultures, what role would western medicine play? how do we ethically accept the idea that our scientific understanding of human health may be at odds with the basis of traditional healing and that we should not pursue modern treatments?
The way this has best played out in the traditional world is to combine the two of them without threatening anyone's livelihood. Africa in particular has been very effective at training traditional shamans and herbal healers in simple western medicine in areas where there are no modern facilities. When the shaman's income and prestige are maintained, they support the simple western scientific principles that save the most lives - boiling the water, using mosquito nets, vaccinating children, and cutting baby's umbilical cords with a sterile instrument. In other areas, a simple division of labor is maintained between western medicine that heals bodies and shamans who heal human problems and human minds.
In areas where there is a clash, a workable compromise is sought. In some areas of India and Nepal, the baby's naval is covered in cow dung after the umbilical cord is cut. Rather than preaching against sacred cow dung, cow urine which is sterile is advocated, followed by antibiotic cream which is the sacred color of white, instead. When mothers see that works, they switch over. When more babies start surviving, the mothers get more interested in practicing birth control and the population growth rate begins to decline. All this because development workers took a pragmatic rather than dogmatic view of things.
Personally, I think the greater mystery that science should address is why in our modern scientific society, so many people are going in the opposite direction. Why, when vaccinations for children have been so widely accepted in the developing world as saving lives, are so many educated people in the west rejecting them? What does this say about world views and subjectivity, science and ethics?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!