Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

percy-l - Re: A Modest Proposal

percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Percy-L: Literary, Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Discussion on Walker Percy

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rhonda McDonnell" <rhonda_mcdonnell AT hotmail.com>
  • To: percy-l AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal
  • Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 22:39:20 +0000


Hi Jim

You wrote:

Perhaps you are right, but it seems to me S-R operant conditioning and
classical Pavlovian conditioning both involve three elements that are joined
triadically in the same way as a symbol is triadically joined with both the
object to which it refers and to the interpretor of that symbol. In the case
of the symbol-object-intepreter we have a symbol that stands for an object
to an interpreter. In the case of Pavlovian conditioning we have a
conditioned stimulus (say a bell) that stands for an unconditioned stimulus
(say a piece of meet) to an interpreter (say a hungry dog). Or, in the case
of S-R conditioning we have a stimulus (say a bell) that stands for a reward
to an intrepter (say a lever pusher). I don't see how this learning
paradigm can be reduced to a series of dyadic chains of relations since it
is crucial that the three events are joined for the learning to occur and
none of the elements (stimulus, response or reinforcement) is simply the
result of only one of the other elements occuring.

This answer of yours to my query concerning S-R solidifies my identification of you as being potentially in the Peirce camp regarding triadic behavior. Peirce used communication between man and dog as an example of triadic communication. Percy didn't seem to agree with this, seeming to limit such communication to that between people or between humans and God.

ALso, if I remember my brief education in S-R theory, part of the point is that the behavior, the dog's salivating for example, occurs even when the transaction is stripped of its meaning--no food to be found. If it does, it's successful--the dog responds to the stimulus, not to the food. But it has no meaning for the dog if the food isn't present. That may be why Percy refers to it as a chain of dyads. The complete transaction doesn't have genuine symbolic meaning.


OK, but does that mean that when one is thinking to herself or privately
learning something new she is not engaged in symbolic formulation?

Formulation, yes, but until you communicate it through representation, is it triadic? In other words, at least for Percy, my understanding of triadic behavior is that it is, by its nature, concerned with representing what's been formulated through the symbolic structure of language.

Also, how much of our through is entirely independent? I only have my own inner workings to draw from, so I'm a bit limited, but much of my thought, if not all of it, builds upon and reacts to others. For example, I may observe some sort of interesting animal behavior while watching my neighbor's dog's antics. I may reformulate some of my thought of S-R, but that reformulation will in part depend on our conversation here. I may even send you a message to communicate my new thoughts, but whether I do that or not, those thoughts are part of the triadic experience we are having.

I think one can communicate
both with nature (a great teacher) as well as with other folks. I think we
live in a meaningful universe and that all learning is meaningful and
symbolic.

I'll agree with that, but I'm not sure it's triadic unless you engage in communication. At least, that's what Percy seems to say, but I'm not sure that Peirce would agree. I need to read more of Peirce.


I don't know whether it is or not, but I was not deliberately trying to draw
a distinction between Peirce and Percy.


I confess that I was. I don't think Percy's entirely agreed with Peirce on this issue, just as he didn't entirely agree with Kierkegaard concerning the religious stage. Maybe that's part of why Percy called himself a thief, although Nikki and Dr. Ketner surely have a clearer idea of all this than I do.


I'm mostly just tossing these ideas out there in response to
Nikki's invitation in hopes of joining with you and others in meaningful
communication.

Likewise!

Of course I recognize that you may well be correct and that I am
not only mistaken but being defensive to boot. I usually am!

Since I have no formal training in psychology, I'm very well may not be correct, but thanks anyway. For the most part, I'm just trying out some ideas, and think that others are doing the same. You didn't come across as defensive.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments,

Rhonda

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page