the "self" and language

by doogie 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  doogie

  i was just talking to my lady about a class she's taking. i can't remember what class it is (yeah, i'm a super good boyfriend... it's just that she's ALWAYS talking...), but they were talking about the relationship language has to cognitive thinking abilities. i think this is extremely interesting which she believes would make me an "unbelievably boring" guy, but anyway...

  in her class they're talking about Mead and, if i understand correctly, that language preceeds cognitive thinking ability. her teacher said that's one factor that contributes to our inability to remember our infancy...because no language = no "self." i've never thought about that before, but in any case i think that thoughts would have to preceed linguistics, because otherwise, what's the point of language?

  i seem to remember a thread not too long ago about this subject, but i can't locate it. can anyone help me out? (...which is the real reason i started this thread. man, i am boring. and longwinded. jeez...i'm gonna go get a beer...)
• 

  vitty

  Thought mead was honey and beer mixed, you know robin hood drank it

  All British ppl know what mead is !!!!!!!!!!
• 

  doogie

  see, i thought it was the guy that invented notebooks. (i doubt that anyone will get that...man i'm lame...)
• 

  Leolaia

  I think she was definitely wrong that language precedes cognitive thinking ability, unless we're talking about innate universals and not postnatal language acquisition. Other animals, for instance, have cognition of one form or another and not language. The emergence of language in humans would have most likely built on top of abilities that were there already; I doubt we would've lost the ability to think without language. Neuropsychological tests have demonstrated that infants can discriminate between numbers and perform rudimentary arithmetic tasks, among other things. I agree that the "self" is linguistically constructed and is based on social distinctions (first between self and mother, and then between different social groups) that are articulated in language. Learning the word for "mother" and learning that it applies only externally and learning that "me" cannot refer to mother is part of this process. However, as Lacan and other psychologists suspected, the process of individuation also occurs through bodily sensations and thus may go back to one's earliest postnatal experiences, e.g. the pain of hunger experienced when being separated from breast, an experience that teaches that there can be an "OTHER" that may not be present. The self is constructed by learning what the "OTHER", the Not-Me is supposed to be.
• 

  doogie

  e.g. the pain of hunger experienced when being separated from breast, an experience that teaches that there can be an "OTHER" that may not be present. The self is constructed by learning what the "OTHER", the Not-Me is supposed to be.

  that's exactly what i mentioned (except far less eloquently) but more from a "thought before language" standpoint than the "self before language" aspect you mentioned.i can't say i've heard of Mead before, i guess i have more reading to do (sigh...)
• 

  love11

  Did you mean to say MEME ?
• 

  DanTheMan

  i seem to remember a thread not too long ago about this subject, but i can't locate it. can anyone help me out? (...which is the real reason i started this thread. man, i am boring. and longwinded. jeez...i'm gonna go get a beer...)

  I think you might be referring to this thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/88338/1.ashx
• 

  SixofNine

  geez doogie, it's fascinating when Leolaia says it, but it's boring as hell when you say it :P~
• 

  Carmel

  Meads were them fairy guys that ran around with the Persians performing hanky panky!

  caveman
• 

  Spook

  Language, yes. Words, no. Language as in meaning by distinctions. It is a fascinating topic. Check out some work by Gregory Bateson.