(#2) The "Not" & Paradox (Gregory Bateson)

GO TO: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0982755953/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=c...
Cf. http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=author:%22Anton%2c+Corey%22
This, the second of three videos, is a short piece taken from my essay in The American Journal of Semiotics Vol 19 (1-4). Special Issue on Gregory Bateson. Guest edited by Deborah Eicher-Catt.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Not
• Paradoxes
• Gregory Bateson
• Logical Types
• Language
• Play
• 'Corey Anton
• Semiotics
• Philosophy
• Cognition
• Freud

[Professoranton]

Point well taken. I agree that I partly misspoke, but I would still stress that there is "Modern Logic" as formalized within mathematics, traditional forms of logic in philosophy, different uses of the word "logic" in semiotics, linguistics, and communication theory, especially as we consider what are sometimes talked about as pre-formalized logic, & the everyday logics of interactions. It is this latter area that Bateson suggests needs more examination. So yes, thanks for your nuanced point.

[HigherPlanes]

Language is a paradox not only because we can say what things are not but because a chair is called a chair by chance alone- we could have picked any number of names for that thing.

[aritsoutube]

There is a strong connection between what you suggest as the origins of language and The Laws of Form by George Spencer-Brown. S-B starts with the fundamental ability to make "A Distinction" and from "The First Distinction" in a way that seems analogous to "In the Beginning was The Word", he is able to derive the concept of Number. Most Math starts with Numbers as a Given. S-B starts at making a distinction (this is Heaven, this is Earth), and derives Number, Equality, Difference, Logic, etc.,

[technopagan724]

I'm not sure how the concept "tomorrow is not a chair" would undermine our sense of logic. members of the chair class fall into a rigid definition and part of that definition is that something can only be a chair if it is a physical object we can touch. Since tomorrow does not fit into that definition, it cannot be a chair. (Someone might say: what if we dream about a chair, is that really a chair? Well, no, b/c that "chair" is really just an electrical impulse in the brain.)

[GosseBosma]

Primary processes fail to distinguish the all from the some and not-all from none. I require more explanation to get this.

[blessedchild501]

i dont get it.

[touchingstoves]

There was a first part to this which I assumed was flagged as spam, but I think it may have just fallen through the cracks of the internet. Anyway, I was just not entirely sure I understood how the slippage occurs between word and object, and higher and lower levels of abstraction.

[touchingstoves]

(Hmm, seems youtube must still have me marked as spam... annoying.)

So what is the idea of "apples", but the line that distinguishes a raw chunk of apple, from a raw chunk of non-apple.

[DarwinsGarden]

Logic is not a field of "language and linguistics," though it can be used as a tool to help study both. Moreover, modern logic does not belong to philosophy either, since only mathematicians make original contributions to logic these days. As the question "What is logic?," I would say that logic is the formal study of deduction. A logical theory, for instance the predicate calculus, is simply an abstract (uninterpreted) hypothetico-deductive system; much like group theory.