Logocentrism?

[Cain]

In critical theory and deconstruction, logocentrism is a phrase coined by the German philosopher Ludwig Klages in the 1920s to refer to the perceived tendency of Western thought to locate the center of any text or discourse within the logos (a Greek word meaning word, reason, or spirit). Jacques Derrida used the term to characterize most of Western philosophy since Plato: a constant search for the "truth."

Logocentrism is often confused with phonocentrism, which more specifically refers to the privileging of speech over writing.

Logocentrism is manifested in the works of Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and many other philosophers of the Western tradition, all of whom regard speech as superior to writing (believing writing only represents or archives speech), but who more generally wish to establish a foundational presence of Logos or "reason" obtained from an origin of all knowledge (e.g., God or the universe).

----------------------------

Derrida believed Western thought has been riddled since the time of Plato by a cancer he called "logocentrism". This is, at its core, the assumption that language describes the world in a fairly transparent way. You might think that the words you use are impartial tools for understanding the world - but this is, Derrida argued, a delusion. If I describe, say, Charles Manson as "mad", many people would assume I was describing an objective state called "madness" that exists in the world. Derrida would say the idea of "madness" is just a floating concept, a "signifier", that makes little sense except in relation to other words. The thing out there - the actual madness, the "signified" - is almost impossible to grasp; we are lost in a sea of opposing words that prevent us from actually experiencing reality directly.

Derrida wants to break down the naive belief that there is an objective external reality connected to our words that can be explored through language, science and rationality. Any narrative we construct to understand the world will inevitably be built on supressed violence and exclusion. So, for example, the narrative of 'madness' has been shown by Derrida's colleague and friend Michel Foucault to be a highly elastic concept that is used to stigmatize 'dissidents'; it is a categry that serves the powerful. None of our words is immune to these power-games. There is tension, opposition and power in even the most simple of concepts.

[Payne]

Good stuff!

I may or may not have some thoughts on this later.

The first (naive) thought that popped into my head is the the tendency to centralising anything always seems to benefit the powerful, even in something as amorphous and complex as language.

I feel this is an over-simplification, and possibly also completely wrong, a statement which is fed more by my prejudices than by actually thinking about it.

Which I will do now.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I agree with the good Dr.

Centralization, in this case centralizing an argument on logos, doesn't seem to benefit the people in charge. The spiritualist encourages the view that the central meaning/central truth to any major question or issue rests in the "soul/spirit/god/other world". If you agree with that world view, then you're likely to let them (or at least the people they're listening to) tell you how to live with that truth in central focus.

If on the other hand, a person has a physical/materialist view, then they're likely to try to convince you that such a view finds the 'truth', the central meaning, in the purely physical chemical reactions, or synaptic connections etc. If you are convinced by their view, then you're likely to let them (or at least the people they're listening to) set forth your view on ethics, morals and perhaps politics.

This concept of everything having a center, locus or a truth value reminded me of a discussion I read regarding causality. In it the author argued that causality was merely a sjubective way of viewing things. Rather than Cause and Effect, reality has causes and effects, causes which are also effects and effects which cause new effects. So then we exist in a complex mess of things happening, but we look, in almost every incident, for the Cause.

The recent bank crisis, for example, could have been 'caused' by deregulation, and people with a specific agenda seem likely to focus on deregulation as the central issue, the truth behind the collapse. Other people might point to Bush and the past 8 years of Stupid and place the cause/center/truth there. Still others, particularly those who subscribe to a deregulated ideology, might point to dishonest consumers, organized crime, predatory lenders, 9/11 or the Democrats (I'm sure someone can figure out how they're a cause ).

In each of those cases, the people holding a specific logos gain power by convincing people that their cause is the right cause.

And in all of those cases, it seems like a selective choice of 'cause' rather than an objective view of why something happened. Could logocentrism be one of the leading causes of Black Swans?

[Golden Applesauce]

In a broader sense, I think this fits in with the human drive to categorize and describe everything, whether that thing is really describable or not, shoehorning things in to words that aren't quite big enough to hold them.

So if Western thought is riddled with the idea of things having a center and being reason-based, what is non-Western thought riddled with?

[Cramulus]

And in all of those cases, it seems like a selective choice of 'cause' rather than an objective view of why something happened. Could logocentrism be one of the leading causes of Black Swans?

certainly, as Black Swans arise from an lack of information or misunderstanding of the universe.


We can be aware of the problem, but there's real no way to escape it, yes? We must continue to use language. Is E-prime [part of] the solution? Or is it just a clumsy patch on bad software?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

And in all of those cases, it seems like a selective choice of 'cause' rather than an objective view of why something happened. Could logocentrism be one of the leading causes of Black Swans?

certainly, as Black Swans arise from an lack of information or misunderstanding of the universe.


We can be aware of the problem, but there's real no way to escape it, yes? We must continue to use language. Is E-prime [part of] the solution? Or is it just a clumsy patch on bad software?

Interesting metaphor

E-Prime has begun to appear as a iffy patch for bad software, to me. Particularly, because it often appears incompatible with systems that don't have the patch, in my experience. If we use E-Prime in a post on a given forum, the general response often seems to run more closely with derision and/or annoyance, rather than improved communication. If a model doesn't get the idea in our mind usefully over to the mind of of the audience, then the value of the medium seems necessarily questionable. Of course, we might also question the 'programming' of the audience, but that may be a constraint we have to deal with.

E-Prime appears to have been very useful for me personally. It seems like a great way to rebuild your internal models. However, except in situations where E-Prime has been applied to all of the neuro-linguistic systems involved, I don't think it improves communication particularly.

Does that make sense?

[Cramulus]

Yeah it makes sense.

I was in the car for two hours with a friend who ended nearly every statement with a clarification:
"But that's just me, I may be wrong."
[I will do x] "--to the extent I am able."
"This is just MY opinion, but--"

after hearing those phrases used every 25 seconds for several hours, it made me really start to grate my teeth. Maybelogic is great for helping people not confuse the map with the territory, but it can also make one sound really wishy-washy and indecisive, which is a worse trap in many contexts.

Back to Logocentrism --
I had a weird dream a few years back. In it, I realized I was dreaming. As I spoke to some dream aspect of myself, I said, "uhh so are you aware that you're just a dream?" and he scowled at me. "So what?" he said. "are you going to treat me differently because this might not be real?"

it echoes to me of that endless search for Truth. To some extent we're all trying to find what's real, and disregard what isn't real.

There's a lot of discussion on that note as to whether internet communities are real communities, or internet friends are real friends. We're in muddy, fuzzy territory here folks.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

after hearing those phrases used every 25 seconds for several hours, it made me really start to grate my teeth. Maybelogic is great for helping people not confuse the map with the territory, but it can also make one sound really wishy-washy and indecisive, which is a worse trap in many contexts.

Yeah, this is tricky stuff. There's a lot of evidence which appears to support the idea that using definite statements of "What IS or IS Not" can lead to errors in thinking, errors in perception, and errors in understanding each other. E-Prime seems one way of removing that problem. However, because all of our standard programming is designed around certainty and ISness, then the intentional removal of seems false and fraudulent.

By trying to avoid the fault of the IS, it seems we might magnify the problem, by distracting the observer's subconscious. Rather than focused on what we are saying, is their subconscious desperately trying to figure out what we're not saying? Rather than "Why did they have that opinion?" the question seems to become "Why did they use that word?" or "Why did they add fifteen extra words to that sentence?"

E-Prime might be terribly useful in self-reflection, but not in communication. What tool would work similarly to E-Prime within communication, without being so distracting?

[Payne]

I generally find that being firm with your assertation is good enough, while also acknowledging opposing view points.

It demonstrates an open mind to things, and basically says "I may be wrong...", without actually distracting your audience or disrupting the flow of communication by doing so.

It also tends to seem less big headed and long winded.

Secondly, I am of the belief that I can never actually change someones mind, they have to do that themselves. All I can do is offer them the tools to do so. Communicating with that in mind certainly appears to make your audience less close-minded and/or defensive.

Communication can only be truly effective if both parties are willing to engage in it.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but it is a distillation of what I do without thinking when I'm trying to communicate.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I generally find that being firm with your assertation is good enough, while also acknowledging opposing view points.

It demonstrates an open mind to things, and basically says "I may be wrong...", without actually distracting your audience or disrupting the flow of communication by doing so.

It also tends to seem less big headed and long winded.

Secondly, I am of the belief that I can never actually change someones mind, they have to do that themselves. All I can do is offer them the tools to do so. Communicating with that in mind certainly appears to make your audience less close-minded and/or defensive.

Communication can only be truly effective if both parties are willing to engage in it.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but it is a distillation of what I do without thinking when I'm trying to communicate.

I think those are excellent points Payne.

So rather than trying to rebuild the flawed tool of language, you are trying to improve on its application, rather than make structural changes?

Sorta like figuring out that you need to save often to survive the blue screen of death, rather than assuming the Microsoft will ever actually fix it?

[Payne]

I generally find that being firm with your assertation is good enough, while also acknowledging opposing view points.

It demonstrates an open mind to things, and basically says "I may be wrong...", without actually distracting your audience or disrupting the flow of communication by doing so.

It also tends to seem less big headed and long winded.

Secondly, I am of the belief that I can never actually change someones mind, they have to do that themselves. All I can do is offer them the tools to do so. Communicating with that in mind certainly appears to make your audience less close-minded and/or defensive.

Communication can only be truly effective if both parties are willing to engage in it.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but it is a distillation of what I do without thinking when I'm trying to communicate.

I think those are excellent points Payne.

So rather than trying to rebuild the flawed tool of language, you are trying to improve on its application, rather than make structural changes?

Sorta like figuring out that you need to save often to survive the blue screen of death, rather than assuming the Microsoft will ever actually fix it?

Well, to continue to use the computing metaphor, I think it's more like stop doing the things that are likely to cause the blue screen of death, and find another way to do the same thing.

I leave it to other people to find and fix the problems with the hardware, until they do I adapt how I use the software.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Aha!

[nurbldoff]

The problem isn't helped by the fact that different groups of people use words in different ways. The other day I was listening to the radio, on a general talk show. A guy called in to complain about scientists in general ans CERN in particular. His main point was that "they don't really know anything, all they have is theories!".

To a scientist, this at first sounds like gibberish, since the goal of science IS theory! But of course, he meant theories in the everyday sense which is something more or less like a guess. The scientific meaning of the word is something that has been tried a large number of time and has (so far) proven to be a reliable tool for predicting stuff.

So, while the criticism may sound reasonable to him, and probably to many listeners too, it is based on a  misunderstanding.

Of course, part of the problem may be that scientists refuse to use words in the same way as other people. But it may also be that other people refuse to read up on things before they shoot their mouth off...

(The guy on the radio show turned out to be some kind of religious nut, BTW.)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The problem isn't helped by the fact that different groups of people use words in different ways. The other day I was listening to the radio, on a general talk show. A guy called in to complain about scientists in general ans CERN in particular. His main point was that "they don't really know anything, all they have is theories!".

To a scientist, this at first sounds like gibberish, since the goal of science IS theory! But of course, he meant theories in the everyday sense which is something more or less like a guess. The scientific meaning of the word is something that has been tried a large number of time and has (so far) proven to be a reliable tool for predicting stuff.

So, while the criticism may sound reasonable to him, and probably to many listeners too, it is based on a  misunderstanding.

Of course, part of the problem may be that scientists refuse to use words in the same way as other people. But it may also be that other people refuse to read up on things before they shoot their mouth off...

(The guy on the radio show turned out to be some kind of religious nut, BTW.)

Sure, but in some sense... he's right. IN the really real part of reality, we only have theories (in the common layman terms) about what will happen. There may be a great hypothesis, based on scientific theories... but that's not the same thing

However, the variation in linguistics is something of a problem in many systems. Some words seem specific to the 'tribe' of people using them. Words like theory, in common English mean little more than 'a made up idea/guess... hopefully based on evidence', among tribes of scientists, as nurbldoff points out, it's a whole different thing. 'Locality' in common English is different than locality among the tribes of wandering physicists. Philosophy is so full of words that don't mean what most people think they mean, that its a wonder anything happens there at all, except for bickering. (Oh... wait a second...)

Distinct words for distinct concepts might go a long way in making things less confusing... but then that would require that each tribe make up their own new words, rather than hijacking existing ones.

[nurbldoff]

Yes, I guess he's right in some sense, but I think he's missing the point. Scientists are making theories; that's the whole idea of science. His complaint was that they don't know the "truth", which apparently he does. But the whole point of building the LHC is to be able to get closer to the "truth", as it were. Just not his brand of truth

Physicists love making up new meanings for words. Thing is, most words are much too imprecise to be used in a mathematical context so they need to be straightened up a bit. Most of these meanings are close to their everyday meanings, but carry some extra qualifications. Words like "small" or "distant" can be adequate descriptions in a physical context.

Of course, all this doesn't help when trying to communicate with non-physicists. But many groups are guilty of this practise to some degree. The reason people don't just make up new words all the time is, I guess, practical. It makes the vocabulary much easier to learn. And as long as you're aware of the differences it usually doesn't present a problem, you just switch depending on who you're talking to and what the subject is.

In fact, every person has its own slightly different connotations to lots of words and expressions that sometimes make for confusion. A bit of sensitivity to context and awareness of this fact might go along way though.