Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA21872 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:40:22 +0100 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 12:38:16 +1000 From: John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <LCJLPHAFJIEGNBAA@my-deja.com> Message-ID: <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.1000707123816@mac463.wehi.edu.au> X-Authenticated: <wilkins@wehiz.wehi.edu.au> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:55:29 -0700 hemidactylus@my-Deja.com (Scott
Chase) wrote:
>
>--
>
>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:22:15 John Wilkins wrote:
.....
>>What you are referring to here is what Aristotle called a "privative
>>definition": An invertebrate is an animal without a backbone, for
>>example. The problem with privative predicates is that there is an
>>indefinite number of things something is *not*. If one says, for
>>example, that mammals evolved from non-mammals, do we mean they
>evolved
>>from rocks? Rocks are, after all, non-mammals. Meaning cannot, without
>a
>>severe narrowing of the semantic possibility space, be privative.
>>
>>
>"Invertebrate" (unlike vertebrate) is a somewhat useless taxonomic name
>in the sense of being a catch all which includes many varied groups
>such as molluscs, insects, and arachnids for instance. It's like
>saying: "Those animals with backbones versus all those other things
>without them."
>
>There's another group of animals within the vertebrates called
>agnathans which are defined as lacking a jaw. I guess this fits with
>the privative deal you're talking about, since it encompasses several
>varied groups such as lampreys and hagfish and some other groups which
>are extinct. OTOH, the group of animals with jaws (gnathostomes) might
>carry more clout as a designation (though I'm about as diffident as I
>can get when babbling about topics to someone who has the philosophical
>acumen to blow me out of the water if I get too sloppy ;-)).
>
>But, when I hear the words agnathan or invertebrate, I'm pretty sure
>the person isn't referring to rocks. I'd assume they are at least
>referring to animals (specifically somewhere within the metazoans), but
>still this privative definition deal must apply I guess.
>
Then the relevant narrowing is implicit in the field of alternative
meanings used by systematists - but the point has been debated at length
(see Nelson, Gareth J., and Norman Platnick. Systematics and
biogeography: cladistics and vicariance. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1981). My point is that from a Wittgensteinian perspective,
meaning is a function of positive imperatives ("do this"; "use the word
like this") even if the "definition" is ostensive, rather than a
privative one. We follow by example (he said, setting off another chain
of discussion on mimesis in memetics...).
--John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research Melbourne, Australia <mailto:wilkins@WEHI.EDU.AU> <http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html> Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 03:41:05 BST