I need to read some taxonomies in "Diagrammatic Representation and Inference ".
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much for reading, or skimming even, the paper which is mine. It is very primitive, I agree. This is partly because I have not read 1/50 of that which you have read.
I also feel t hat I am trying to overthrow a great weight of belief in reason / rationality, so I attempted to do write a summary of the various research that questioned the power of words-in-mind. I will have a look at Kihlstorm though
I am more interested in finding other brothers in arms - anti-rationalists.
The intro to this paper also breezes through the anti-rationalist or "Steam Whistle" literature, mentioning Libet.
Baumeister, R., Masicampo, E. J., & Vohs, K. (2011). Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? Annual Review of Psychology
, 331–361. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131126
I know Libet is old and argued, but if he is relevant enough for Baumeister, he is relevant enough for me
But I see that Kihlstrom, while being a whisperer, also summarizes Whistle Hyposthesis ("brothers in arms") research
I also agree that I have been very rough-and-ready, and there is a whole lot more variation that I am skipping but, while I agree, I think that there is also a considerable movement or even consensus that there are phonemes in mind vs the rest
. For example, in intercultural communication, the "High Context" sdvs. "Low Context" distinction of Edward T. Hall assumes that words are central and everything else is context/background and still holds sway. But what is central or "non contextual" about words?! Or the Analytic vs Holistic destinction of Masuda and Nisbett is again, I think, in fact a distinction between words (the only things that analyse) and, again, the whole, 'the rest' everything else. So while I agree entirely that I have broad-brushed-over vast variation, this brushing-over seems to me to exist in the ("WEIRD" "logocentric") academic consensus that we live in. Maybe.
Derrida is the doyen of the distinction that I am trying to make: logocentrism (word/phoneme in mind) vs everything else. For example, Derrida looks at
Plato's theory of writing (vs spoken words in mind)
Descartes "res cogitans" (stuff for thinking - words/phonemes in mind) "res exstensa" (everything else)
Searle/Austin Speech act theory between speech which is just descriptive and speech that is also an action such as "I promise," "I bet"
Husserl's sign typology between signs that express meaning, (words in mind) and signs that indicate, which are signs that do not express meaning but are interpreted to mean e.g. animal droppings in a forest that are interpreted by a hunter
(Perhaps it is possible to add)
Levi Stauss' (Sasurian/dual/modern) signs vs "savage thought" or "bons a penser" (things for thinking that are good for thinking).
Jackson's (1086) theory involving Mary where there are words for phenomena that Mary has seen such as "black" and words for phenomena that Mary has not seen such as "red."
Semantic Scholar extracted view of "What Mary Didn't Know" by F. Jackson
In all cases Derrida claims that these philosophers are attempting to create a difference between the special hearing oneself speak signs
vs the rest, which are inferior because, the hearing oneself speak / words-in-mind contain a duality, difference between the sign and its meaning. This attempt to create a difference is a trick, Derrida claims, since all signs, including words in mind have the inferiorness or lack ascribed to the inferior type of signs, and further (as Freud claims) words (phonemes) in mind, contain no inherent duality or difference (between sign and mean, signifier signifiied) only a deferral or "differance" between "hands"/roles in our mind, like a radio play in our mind, that take it in turns to write and then read and rub out the words in mind as described by Freud in "A Note on the Mystic Writing Pad". On the ("arche writing") pad of our mind, there is no duality, no difference between signifier and signifiied, only a differance between the time of writing and, the hidden, time of reading.
(Lately I have been thinking that the later may be "lead us not into temptation" / or "lead us not into the time of trial" mentioned in the Lords prayer!)
Likewise, Kihlstrom writes on page 326
Now let us imagine what must go on in the mind of a subject in a libet-type experiment,to which Libetus interruptus has been added.
"OK, there’s the start....Gotta relax, gotta watch the clock, gotta remember not to blink...Damn! Just blinked...OK,watch the clock...Now I’ve got toflick this finger sometime...Maybe now...Naah, noty et, maybe later...OK,soon...Now! Note the time[Flicks finger]. . . OK, now wait a while...Oh!Here’s the click! Gotta move...[Flick]. . . OK, let’s wait a while...Notyet...Soon...There’s another click![Flick]. . . That’s been a coupla flicks, I think I’ll take a break...Aaarrrghhh! Another damn click![Flick]. . . Gotta keep my ears open for that click and stay ready...No click for a while, maybe it’s time for me to do it on my own...Maybe. now...Naah, noty et, maybe later...OK,soon...Now! Note the time.[Flicks finger]. . . When’s this experiment going to be over?"
Here again there is the same sort of distinction, as made in my naff paper and the whole history of Western philosophy, appears to be being made: words in mind vs, "the rest" of mental contents in this case completely ignored .
As you point out there are a myriad types of visuals that mean (photographic, diagrams, indexes, icons, etc) but all these meaningful visual mental contents, and other mental contents in other modes (e.g. non word sounds, feelings, smells, tastes, touches, heats, [though I can only seem to bring sounds and visuals to mind]) have been completely omitted. The mind of the subject is described as containing words in mind only, plus, in the [brackets] actions that do not take place in mind. Kihlsrom also is creating (whereas I am attempting to deny) a distinction between words-in-mind and everything else.
Returning to the thread topic, Freud likewise posits a privileged position of words in mind. I see Freud as a theorist of Western culture, which imho he describes well: word obsessed.