[KB] Burke, Deacon, and Theology

[Edward C Appel]

Greg,

Just a short reply here.  Hope to get more into this matter later.  I've already posted a bit on Deacon as to "indexicality," reference, and grammatical rules back when.

The basic explanation goes like this: The "subject/predicate," "topic/comment," or "index operation/symbolic operation" juxtaposition, in all its admitted variety and ramifications, is required for a statement to make sense.  There's nothing in the brain of humans, in comparison or contrast with that of other mammals, that can uphold Chomsky's notion of an innate Universal Generative Grammar.  All symbolizers have to learn these necessitous "rules" on their own.  By about 1-and-1/2 years of age, children have it figured out mostly on their own.  That's how supple their cognitive powers are, the human brain having evolved symbolic capacity gradually but surely over about 2 million years.

Now, it's hard for someone like me, who's not a neuroscientist or evolutionary developmental biologist, not to think that kids do pick up those grammatical rules and structures from listening to the talk of adults---assuming that Chomsky is wrong on the matter, that grammatical structuring is not innate.  But Deacon claims that's how children learn to put the parts of sentences together meaningfully.  On synmbolic acquisition, they're smart little gals and guys!  They even learn, or intuit, the "second world" of symbol-symbol relationships on their own.

Who'd a thunk it!



Ed



        



       
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 3/18/15, Gregory Desilet <info at gregorydesilet.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [KB] Burke, Deacon, and Theology
 To: "Edward C Appel" <edwardcappel at frontier.com>
 Cc: "Clarke Rountree" <rountrj at uah.edu>, "kb at kbjournal.org" <kb at kbjournal.org>
 Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015, 8:49 PM
 
 Quoting Ed,
 Deacon is apparently working with a linguist on a new book:
 "An apparently anti-Chomskyan tome, it will show that
 reference to neither nature nor nurture is needed to
 demonstrate how the “rules” of grammar are fixed early
 on in the communicative practice of the symbolic
 species.”
 Thanks, Ed, for your efforts in laying out the
 ideas of Deacon and Cashman. I wonder if you can say more
 about how they view the rules of grammar as being fixed
 early on in communicative practice without reference to
 “nature or nurture.” This would seem to rule out innate
 propensity (Chomsky) as well as ostensive enculturation
 (Augustine). What is left?
 Greg
 
 
 On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>
 wrote:
 An
 apparently anti-Chomskyan tome, it will show that reference
 to neither nature nor nurture is needed to demonstrate how
 the “rules” of grammar are fixed early on in the
 communicative practice of the symbolic
 species.)