| Topic: | Re:Re:Heterarchy - now categories |
| Posted by: | Amilcar |
| Date/Time: | 05/01/2004 23:22:48 |
|
i guess i should apologize for the hedge "i'm not fully sure' that my notion of 'logical types' is identical to JG's, i'll say that my notion of logical types closely aligns with what i think about 'categories'". This was a self-talk statement which i should have developed into something like: i'm not sure of the relationship that JG and CBSC posit between 'logical levels' and 'categories'. Part of the intent of my post, while explicitly metaphorizing and exploring my model of the relationship between Dilt's 'logical levels', aimed to draw out the relationship between logical levels and categories in the minds of JG and CBSC -and in that implicit/indirect case an utter failure. So to make it explicit: what are the relationships between your (JG & CBSC) notion of logical types and categories (as found in the domain of cognitive semantics, i.e. lakoff etc.). My post included the notion that a thought could be classified in two 'categories'/'logical levels' but i wasn't sure as to whether there is an strict either/or distinction or a relatively analog gradation as to whether a thought can reside as both a statement about 'identity' and 'capability' as in the statement "i can X" [as the word "I" can be thought of as a thought about 'identity' and the word "can" can be thought of as a thought about 'capability']. This statement, "i can X" contrasts two kinds of statements probable in the example of a person trying to rescue themselves from a sinking boat, namely thoughts like a) "i have to get the flashlight off the boat with me" and b) what i would guess be f1 transform such as the thinking through of the untying of the liferaft (which in my expereince of emergencies would be accompanied by a different kind of self-talk which is more directive such as "get the liferaft untied"). You'll notice that the first two statements contain the word "i" invoking notions of a dissociated identity whereas the last statement does not. Consequently i would assume that such a self-talk formed thought as "get the liferaft untied" would not be classified under 'identity', but rather belong to the class of experience outlined by the flow researcher Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls 'non-conscious self-assurance' though assuming both identity (lost performative) and ability (able to do the getting') it would most likely be a candidate for 'behavior' in that it is an instruction of what to do. So when i said that "i wasn't sure", that was supposed to refer to the issue of exclusivity, it wasn't that i wasn't familiar with WITW or my own notions of logical types, it was more an issue of not knowing the relationship between your definition of 'logical types' and my notion of 'categories' (which i think and hope is in accordance with the definition in cognitive semantics). Reiterating: i would like to ask you (JG & CBSC) what relationship(s) do you find between 'logical levels' and 'categories'. Specifically at issue is the notion of whether a item or thought can be a member of two different "natural language partitions", as in borderline cases. I wasn't sure due to your (JG & CBSC) explicitly pointing to the ambiguitiy in "all the essential characteristics". In my examples above, of the three different thoughts, each thought could reasonably be identified (no pun intended) under one or more of Dilt's 'logical levels' (my categories). So my question is about the exclusivity of your (JG's & CBSC's)logical levels. Example question would a 'mulatto' or 'octaroon' have to be white or black or could he or she be both? In this example of 'race' would the question of exclusivity reside in the definition of 'logical types' itself or in the rules governing the definition of what members of the set are included/excluded. Also, when the rules of the set are not clear on the issue of ex/inclusivity, which way "should" we lean: toward exclusivity (single classifications) or inclusivity (multiple classifications)? I couldn't tease out the answer to the question because i just recieved the book three days ago and have only read through it once, and didn't have it on hand when writing the post, but thank you greatly for your prompt and perceptive response. As for the examples as being more like self-organizing teams . . . sorry if i hadn't scratched the heterarchy issure for ya. Amilcar |