Logocentrism?

[Verbal Mike]

In fact, every person has its own slightly different connotations to lots of words and expressions that sometimes make for confusion.

This is essentially what gives us different languages (and dialects) in the first place. It is actually incredibly rare for two people to speak the exact same language. This is extremely, extremely rare, and found only amongst best friends, couples, and siblings (and in none of these cases is it common at all.) The thing is that within a group where distance is small (or in other words, where frequency of communication is high), such as a single family, the differences in the use of language are so small as to be unnoticeable in all contexts - people in a single home will pretty much never have a misunderstanding based on semantics.

As the size and distance of the group grows and the frequency of communication between any two individuals becomes (on average) lower, the discrepancies in semantics grow. So whereas a single home experiences approximately zero "semantic friction", the small town they live in experiences it some times and silly semantic misunderstandings do happen amongst locals. They are rare - because the frequency of communication between the individuals is still high relative to say, their entire country - but they happen. Now as you zoom out to a larger and larger group, where the chance that any two random individuals will communicate becomes lower and lower (open a phone book and pick a person at random. what is the chance you have ever spoken with them?), semantic friction goes up. People develop their own person idiolect based on their limited field of experience and communication, and in a larger group, when communicating with others whose field of experience is difference, it is likelier that they speak in languages with more of a difference.

Now, because of the practical things that cause you to mainly communicate with people in your own country (i.e, that's where you are located, and the law and organizations across the border somewhat discourage you having your whole life in the other country) everyone in that country tends to form a group where the language is more-or-less compatible. But as you zoom even further out, you notice that in other countries people speak so differently you probably can't understand them at all without some effort - semantic friction is very high.

So far this is all obvious if you've given any thought to this matter at all, I think. But what this example with the radio show highlights is that some groups with high frequency of internal communication are based on profession or field of interest or memetics, rather than location. Scientists form, as Rata said, a tribe, and even though they speak a language that may be classified as "English", this does not at all mean that other "English"-speakers speak their language. Scientific English is a specialized brand of English that differs from the mainstream vernacular in a way that local dialects do not, but the basic reason this jargon exists is the same as the reason why dialects exist and why languages are not mutually intelligible. The main factor is simply how much the different idiolects (single people's languages) interact with one another and affect one another. If you spend time in scientific circles, or read scientific literature (which is a form of one-way communication), your idiolect may pick up elements of the other idiolects you come in contact with. Since scientists communicate about science primarily with other scientists, this tiny gradual effect gains weight through feedback loops - all in much the same way as people from the same region will speak in a similar way to one another.

[nurbldoff]

The language of science: heavily accented english.

Many scientists do have a habit of explicitly defining their terms when there is the risk of misunderstanding, but of course in each field there is a basic vocabulary you're just expected to know. This certainly doesn't make it easier to read scientific papers if you're a layman, or even slightly out of your field... Also, each distinct language probably has its own "language of science", where terms are pretty much analogous to the english ones (being the primary language of international exchange). E.g. swedish speaking scientists don't habitually speak english to each other. I wonder how people whose languages are much more different from english handle this.

On the positive side, I suppose the (unconscious or not) practise of forming idiolects and subdialects might actually be a driving force for linguistic innovation.

[Verbal Mike]

I wouldn't call it a practice so much as a phenomenon. It is simply what happens when the frequency of communication (or entanglement) goes down within a given group of idiolects. (Assuming there is a random element in forming the idiolects themselves, which seems necessary for a view of language based on evolution.)

[Rumckle]

I agree with Payne on this, it is system that works well.

I guess I think a good solution is just taking what people say as opinion, no matter how it is worded, no matter if they are saying it as opinion or not. I guess, remembering that people are fallible, so will get things wrong, put spin on things, consciously and subconsciously, etc. Sought of like taking the concept of e-prime further (however without reconstructing language), saying everybody has a different experience of things, and acknowledging that. An opinion, say Sarah Palin is an idiot, can be taken the same as stating a fact, Sarah Palin is running for Vice President, because this is seen as a fact because we agree on it, as we both have the same sources of information, and it is hard to take what we are told on that in a different way.

Of course this is kinda just asking to be hit over the head with a barstool.

That said, I like idiolects, they add to a persons personality, and any restriction on them could just end up turning people more into robots.

[nurbldoff]

Being aware of these things obviously makes it easier to communicate and the world suddenly makes a lot more sense. Still, there is the problem of being misunderstood by people who aren't aware of it. E-prime may be useful tool but it's no final solution. The mechanism that makes you believe in the stuff that fits your world view can't be fooled that easily. In fact, many people seem programmed to not listen to what you say unless you really appear to believe it yourself, in which case e-prime is kind of short-circuited.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I am feeling bummed that about all I have time for these days is skimming, because I get interrupted so often. I can tell this is a really good thread but I've been too busy/tired/distracted to sit down and do it justice.

[Rumckle]

I don't really like e-prime, I think if anything, language needs to be less controlled.

However that aside, the featured article on Wikipedia today seems relevant and interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

I may have more to say when I finish reading it and have time to consider it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Anekantavada, I think could absolutely be tied to the same line of thought as we're discussing here. The Elephant story appears in a couple 'discordian' themed books.

[wlfjstr]

The Syādvāda appears also.  It is one of my favorite bits from the PD.

The nature of truth is far more difficult to discern than it appears.

In your heart...

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I think that part of why E-Prime gets a bad rap is because of a misunderstanding about how obvious it is. (lol) When I first read the article on E-Prime, I considered it to be quite lame, because I interpreted it as a simple, direct translation: X is Y --> X seems to me to be roughly equivalent to Y. I saw a youtube video of RAW speaking E-Prime, and found that in its original conception, it was a lot more fluid and a lot less obvious.

When he translates "Rock is better than rap" it didn't come out as "Rock seems to me to be better than rap", but instead, "I prefer rock over rap". That doesn't seem wishy-washy at all to me, and in fact seems more direct without mashing words into totally ambiguous globules of globulity, and stuff. :P

That said, a lot of statements are going to be significantly more difficult to translate, especially before complete rewiring. E-Prime isn't so much a patch, but a patch specification suggestion -- if you implement it well, then it should work just fine as a patch, but you'll have to work at it.


I quite agree with the idea that the diversity of language types is a force for innovation. That said, I'm sure there's a balance to be had between the progressively isolated low-propogation feedback networks (wherein a dialect becomes totally incomprehensible to someone one town over) and a highly conductive and homogenizing language network (wherein everyone speaks with a california accent from kansas to hong kong because that's how people talk on TV) -- and I think that's when you hit the sweet spot with lots of linguistic innovation and frequent intercultural crossfertilization.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that part of why E-Prime gets a bad rap is because of a misunderstanding about how obvious it is. (lol) When I first read the article on E-Prime, I considered it to be quite lame, because I interpreted it as a simple, direct translation: X is Y --> X seems to me to be roughly equivalent to Y. I saw a youtube video of RAW speaking E-Prime, and found that in its original conception, it was a lot more fluid and a lot less obvious.

When he translates "Rock is better than rap" it didn't come out as "Rock seems to me to be better than rap", but instead, "I prefer rock over rap". That doesn't seem wishy-washy at all to me, and in fact seems more direct without mashing words into totally ambiguous globules of globulity, and stuff. :P

That said, a lot of statements are going to be significantly more difficult to translate, especially before complete rewiring. E-Prime isn't so much a patch, but a patch specification suggestion -- if you implement it well, then it should work just fine as a patch, but you'll have to work at it.


I quite agree with the idea that the diversity of language types is a force for innovation. That said, I'm sure there's a balance to be had between the progressively isolated low-propogation feedback networks (wherein a dialect becomes totally incomprehensible to someone one town over) and a highly conductive and homogenizing language network (wherein everyone speaks with a california accent from kansas to hong kong because that's how people talk on TV) -- and I think that's when you hit the sweet spot with lots of linguistic innovation and frequent intercultural crossfertilization.

[Edward Longpork]

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.

Current events which touch on this ---

Growing acceptance for trans people - this involves accepting the socially constructed nature of gender roles. The idea of Male and Female just being a floating concept, a signifier.

On the other side of the fence, you've got the American confederate flag. The flag is coming down all over the place, and so we're also seeing some disgusting defense mechanisms.

I listened to a John Oliver episode last night in which he described the flag as "objectively racist", and I flinched a bit. I think what a flag "really signifies" is a floating point, and we're never going to find anything "objective" there.

I think that the discussion about the flag's "meaning" is missing the point and should be avoided; we should be talking about its consequences.  To me, it's not about whether the flag is racist or not, we should be focused on how people relate to and react to the flag. How black people feel when they see the flag is not up for debate.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

Current events which touch on this ---

Growing acceptance for trans people - this involves accepting the socially constructed nature of gender roles. The idea of Male and Female just being a floating concept, a signifier.

On the other side of the fence, you've got the American confederate flag. The flag is coming down all over the place, and so we're also seeing some disgusting defense mechanisms.

I listened to a John Oliver episode last night in which he described the flag as "objectively racist", and I flinched a bit. I think what a flag "really signifies" is a floating point, and we're never going to find anything "objective" there.

I think that the discussion about the flag's "meaning" is missing the point and should be avoided; we should be talking about its consequences.  To me, it's not about whether the flag is racist or not, we should be focused on how people relate to and react to the flag. How black people feel when they see the flag is not up for debate.

History and context are relevant, though.

[President Television]

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.

Current events which touch on this ---

Growing acceptance for trans people - this involves accepting the socially constructed nature of gender roles. The idea of Male and Female just being a floating concept, a signifier.

On the other side of the fence, you've got the American confederate flag. The flag is coming down all over the place, and so we're also seeing some disgusting defense mechanisms.

I listened to a John Oliver episode last night in which he described the flag as "objectively racist", and I flinched a bit. I think what a flag "really signifies" is a floating point, and we're never going to find anything "objective" there.

I think that the discussion about the flag's "meaning" is missing the point and should be avoided; we should be talking about its consequences.  To me, it's not about whether the flag is racist or not, we should be focused on how people relate to and react to the flag. How black people feel when they see the flag is not up for debate.

History and context are relevant, though.

Yes, they are. The flag may not be objectively racist, but it was objectively used by racist people for racist purposes, and there's quite a bit of evidence backing that up, given that it was a fairly recent time period. The one thing that I could see giving the flag a strong contender for an alternate meaning would be if an organization at some point down the line appropriated it in an entirely different context, for entirely different purposes, the way the Nazi party did with the swastika. However, like the swastika, I think this would need to occur centuries or possibly millennia after the fact.

I think at this point in history, it is unlikely that any group without a racist agenda would use the flag, and if they did, rather than changing its widely-accepted meaning, they would instead be suspected of racism. What's more, they would likely attract racists to their cause, and thus become a racist organization from the inside. So what we're dealing with is a symbol, yes, but it's a symbol with a very strong memetic pull, if it makes any sense to put it that way. Whoever repurposes this symbol, I think, will need to be far removed from its original context; I strongly suspect that if it ever is repurposed, it won't be by Americans.