Modeling the World
Tom requested further explanation of the modeling of worldview, from the perspective of Thomas Sebeok’s explanation of the relationship between language and semiotics. Rereading him carefully, this is the best I can come up with.
There is the world-as-it-is. This would be a sort of zero-state, inaccessible in its complete form to any organic creature. You could call it world zero (Sebeok doesn’t really address this—this is an extrapolation based on his exploration of the next level).
Then there is the world-as-perceived. A sort of world one. Sebeok cites F. Jacob to explain the world, from the point of view of biology:
As Jacob has explained, ‘every organism is so equipped as to obtain a certain perception of the outside world. Each species thus lives in its own unique sensory world, to which other species may be partially or totally blind . . . What an organism detects in an environment is always but a part of what is around. And this part differs, according to the organism.’ The world-as-perceived depends crucially on each organism’s total sensorium and on the way its brain integrates sensory with motor events. But inclusive behavioral resources of any organism must be reasonably aligned with its model of ‘reality’ (Natur), that is, the system of signs its nervous system is capable of assembling—or it will surely be doomed, by natural selection, to extinction. (emphasis mine).
Hence, the primary model of behavior for any organism is a “system of signs” which is tied to its senses, but not limited to it. This model avoids the problem (in the case of humans) of declaring sensory perception the primary model for our world. It is a more complex matter than that. And this also establishes the certainty that other creatures do indeed have a world view.
In this way, he justifies the idea that language can only be a secondary modeling system. Only humans use verbal language, so for Sebeok this establishes a sort of world two modeled by language in addition to the sub-system of signs. Culture then, is what he considers to be world three, built from language and the subconscious level of signs previously mentioned.
I hope this helps clear up any confusion. I don’t know enough about Heidegger to compare them meaningfully. It seems to me that what we are doing is constructing models of reality in terms of this secondary model of language, and thus we are limited by it. But that does not mean that other layers don’t exist. As Locke suggests, if we could conceive of things in terms of more primary signs, then a new mode of thinking might be revealed.
Thanks – the progression you describe appears to follow a pattern that begins with the allegation that what we call perception is, ob ovo, inextricably bound up with language as sign or figure, and that it is upon this shadowy “ground” that we construct our verbal realm, with its distinctions of true/false, literal/figural, etc. Then, we forget, and fall back into talk of “perception,” “reality,” etc. This seems a common enough pattern to warrant attention.
I’m still trying to understand what he means by signs, but if “Culture then, is what he considers to be world three, built from language and the subconscious level of signs previously mentioned.” is right then he must be substantially accepting of the Safir-Whorf hypothesis, and not in its weak form. Or am I completely missing the boat here? As I understand S-W in its broadest interpretation, language by its structure and constraints determines the worldview (and thus the culture) of those that use it as their sole language.
S-W has been pretty much thrown out by linguists and there is a rather good shredding of S-W at http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/sapirw.html
Driveler: It is simply not true that “S-W has been pretty much thrown out by linguists.” Even the site you recommend for “a rather good shredding” says:
“Few linguists would accept the strong formulation of the Whorfian hypothesis today. However, a rather watered-down version is generally accepted.”
The fact that the person who wrote that doubts even the watered-down version is neither here nor there; it’s not even clear to me that the author is a linguist. The point is that many linguists accept the watered-down version, and as far as I can see there’s no reason not to. It’s not nice to make unsupported claims to advance your own preferred view. (Incidentally, the denial of any form of S-W is often made by linguists who believe all languages are identical underneath the “surface,” which as far as I’m concerned pretty much disqualifies them from having an opinion. Linguists who actually know languages susbstantially different from their own tend to feel differently.)
I wonder if Sebeok would be content with a toning down of that description’s implications of strict hierarchy. It’s easy to picture a diagram with “culture” lying atop “language” which in turn lies atop the “signs/perception” layer that contemporary neuroscience has been mapping. Which is tidy and satisfying as a diagram.
But as a model of reality, wouldn’t it be closer to say that “culture” is influenced by signs and perceptions outside verbal language, and that cultural artifacts and habits are responsible for many of our “signs/perceptions”, and that our verbal impulses (even Locke’s!) are driven by something other than a dead dictionary’s worth of language? New words and usages appear all the time; “primary signs” are among them, I think, but very quickly become just more words.
If these purported “worlds” didn’t interpenetrate across their entire extents, I think we’d freeze in our tracks.
One question that arises with the very suggestive notion of interpenetration: What do we know about the relation of the “worlds” – e.g., if nonverbal signs do not necessarily obey the rules of syntax or the transformations found in the system of tropes, how do these layers “communicate”?
If there is a reason to use the “world 1,2,3” metaphor, it’s because each world could very well constitute a mode of signification whose relation to the others remains to be understood. Then when talking of penetration, questions of translation, among others, arise.
I have emailed about other research and study within phenomenology. I have had two poems and a latin saying Ob Ovo show on my computor Saint John of the Cross Day, December 14, 2001. I did not know of that word, nor do I know latin. The second poem was referenced from Edith Stein’s collected works I had not read. There is much more to this study and what it was I experienced and would love to share it with you. The word Ob Ovo was discussed defined in parethesis as (examines everything that is needed for the solution of a question). Could I send on to you these two poems. I have also heard in mysticism and mystical experience during this time of phenomenological study. I dreamt a poem and wrote seeing it written at the end, divinely inspired and that it would be the first national poem one day. All that I studied and researched is well grounded within catholic doctrine, Magesteruim and naturalistic theology. Is there anyone you know that researches in this area of pheno,enology. I have what could be one of the most sacred studies of phenomenology. Sue