Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

percy-l - Re: [percy-l] language theory

percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ken Armstrong <armstron AT ohiou.edu>
  • To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" <percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [percy-l] language theory
  • Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 15:48:50 -0500

At 10:21 AM 2/26/2004 -0500, you wrote:

Still struggling with the other question I had mentioned last time ("If there is a physical/biological brain location for language (surely dyadic), how is that this dyadic structure creates triadic thought? Aren't we back to Descartes' dilemma of how a mind/body interacts?"). I didn't quite understand Ken's answer: ("More like we're already in it when we assume that the dyadic and the
triadic happen in totally different contexts. Why not one is subsumed to the other? But can that be explained dyadically? No.")

Karey

Sorry if my answer was cryptic. I think the answer to your question, in part, is that the dyadic brain structure does not create thought. I know that this answer will be unacceptable to some, but it seems to me that your question has brought to bear the usefulness of the Peirce/Percy terms dyadic and triadic. Keeping a close focus on the dyadic of the brain will bring all sorts of wondrous insights into the physical processes that accompany thinking and speech, but cannot answer what it is that creates thought. Percy addressed something similar in Message in the Bottle when he noted that the physical explanation for triadic phenomenon regresses until proponents are brought to the idea of homunculi pulling the strings of the brain, etc. We can know more and more about the dyadic, but, to paraphrase, there is no progress in the triadic.

Ken A.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page