[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] perception/conception etc
There's the rub, ay. Let me answer this way. I think LSV's analysis of the development of concepts offers some important insights and raises some difficult questions. One of the insights is that we cannot use a word to label a concept (as I have been doing, writing of the concept of 'cardinal'), because word meaning develops. What the word 'dog' means to a 2 year old is not what it means to a 20 year old. That raises the question, though, of how we can talk and write about concepts. Do we go back to the computational approach of lists of features? (Cardinal = human + male + catholic + red hat - which is about as far as my version of this concept goes!) But isn't that just repeating the problem, now with multiple words in place of one?
Second, we should not speak of single concepts in isolation, because they always operate together as a system of generalization - the globe (even though some systems are more systematic than others, as Paula has pointed out.) So Cardinal works together with Pope and Religion and Sam Neil... Okay, this makes sense, but the question of how to describe things becomes harder still, because we have to somehow describe the whole system.
Third, I can't see a way of adequately describing my experience with the salt-shaker except in terms of many psychological functions working together. There is MEMORY - the recollection of Wolsey's hats, IMAGINATION of the salt-shaker *as though* a cardinal; THINKING - of the salt-sharer *as like* a cardinal (though of course it lacks several of the defining features); and then PERCEPTION - seeing the little cardinal, if only for a few seconds.
Put these points together and there is good reason to think that Eric's concept of music and mine identify different features, operate within different systems of generalization, and will be employed in different ways in conjunction with the other psychological functions. Add to that that Eric and I will use the words in different ways in different circumstances. He may call out 'Wolsey' while I say 'cardinal.' He may say 'music' when listening to John Cage; I may say 'noise.' Even when the reference is shared, the words may differ and the concepts too.
LSV writes of conversations between adult and child where the two use the same word but mean different things. His analysis seems to me to suggest that two adults will be in the same situation. On the one hand that seems to run up against Wittgenstein's arguments against the possibility of a private language. On the other hand, there is Garfinkel's insistence, way back in 1969, that our common model of communication as working because speaker and listener shame 'the same' language and 'the same' background assumptions is mistaken. For Garfinkel two people communicating are working out what the words mean in the moment. Or, better, they are working out how to get some joint project accomplished, and if they use words whose meaning/conception is different for each of them, that's not (usually) a problem. They *do* have in common their practical activity.
I guess what I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that LSV wrote of concepts as *one* way of relating to the world, not as the only way and not in isolation. There is active construction, for sure, but it is in interaction with the world. He also gave us a lot of questions we still haven't figured out how to answer.
Martin
On Jul 9, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns wrote:
>
>> . Why would you assume we have the same concept of music?
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>
> Would communication and shared reference have anything to do with it? What does "same" mean in this context, Martin?
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On Jul 9, 2010, at 12:22 PM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>>
>>> Martin:
>>>
>>> I agree that increasing the vernacular does not increase understanding.
>>>
>>> Yet still my perception of music differs from others but yet my concept
>>> does not, would you agree with that?
>>>
>>> Try listening to Lou Reed's" Machine Metal Music" and tell me what you
>>> think.
>>>
>>> eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> Date: 07/09/2010 11:46 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] perception/conception etc
>>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric,
>>>
>>> For me, the question that needs to be answered is why we need to introduce
>>> a new term, "percept." We can all talk about 'perception,' as an active
>>> process of interaction with the world, right? What is gained when we start
>>> to talk about 'percepts,' as though there are some little entities
>>> floating around somewhere? Haven't we turned a process into an entity?
>>>
>>> The university has a good selection of DVDs, and I recently checked out
>>> the first season of the cable TV channel Showtime's series The Tudors,
>>> which recounts how Henry VIII's need for a male heir led to the rupture
>>> between England and the Catholic Church. It's not exactly aiming for
>>> historical accuracy, but I was then motivated to check out Elton's history
>>> of the period and it turns out the series does a pretty good job of
>>> touching on most of the important events.
>>>
>>> Everyone in the show is a fashion statement, including Cardinal Wolsey
>>> who, as played by Sam Neil, is both cunning and likable. He shows up each
>>> time in a different outfit, wearing a variety of official headgear, each
>>> in that rich cardinal red.
>>>
>>> One morning I was fixing breakfast and reached out for the salt shaker.
>>> It's made of transparent plastic with a lid, something we picked up at the
>>> supermarket. But the lid is bright red, and (and here's the point; thanks
>>> for your patience!) as I picked it up, for a second or two what I saw was
>>> a little cardinal.
>>>
>>> That seems to me a nice example of what Mike has been exploring, the
>>> active and ongoing character of perception, in which conceiving and
>>> perceiving are intimately linked. I see the object *through* and *in
>>> terms* of a concept (though we're still none to sure what that is!), in
>>> this case the concept of cardinal that had been enriched by watching the
>>> TV show. The process is not entirely within me as an individual, because
>>> the salt shaker did its part.
>>>
>>> To me, saying that I "have" a "percept" doesn't help me understand this
>>> process. The percept would be - what, a little red cardinal? or is the
>>> percept the salt shaker, and I impose a concept of cardinal on it? but
>>> isn't 'salt shaker' a concept too?? Putting all of this stuff inside the
>>> individual leads to an infinite regress, not a satisfactory explanation
>>> (or even description) of what is going on.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2010, at 10:43 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Percept would be preference? I don't know exactly but people do not
>>>> operate upon appropriated concepts 100% of the time. Do they? Certainly
>>>
>>>> children do not. Currently I am not exactly sure what the question is
>>>> that needs to be answered.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the percept in the 'not-wanting-to-listen-to-dylan" for me would
>>>
>>>> be I would prefer listening to the radio seeing as he never gets any air
>>>
>>>> time or perhaps it would be that I am stuck inside of mobile with the
>>>> memphis blues again?
>>>>
>>>> That certainly is a great question. Others with
>>>> thoughts/percepts/concepts?
>>>>
>>>> eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>> Date: 07/09/2010 09:14 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] perception/conception etc
>>>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, Eric let's suppose you woke up this morning not wanting to listen to
>>>
>>>> Dylan. What is the percept in that situation? Dylan? His music? Your
>>>> temporary dislike? The fact that yesterday you felt differently?
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 9, 2010, at 8:04 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Martin:
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand your misgivings about placing construction within but
>>>> perhaps
>>>>> this makes sense: concepts are appropriated from the social/cultural
>>>>> arena but percepts are individually based. My percepts about music may
>>>
>>>>> run counter to yours and there are even days I don't want to listen to
>>>> Bob
>>>>> Dylan. However, I have an appropriated concept of music that is
>>>> probably
>>>>> extremely similar to yours. Does this make sense? I know this
>>>>> internal/exteranl debate has raged for years and won't end anytime soon
>>>
>>>>> but some things do indeed happen within. I still have to think though
>>>>> that cracking this code between everyday and scietific could assist in
>>>>> understanding human development.
>>>>>
>>>>> eric
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca