Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fantastic-Ad8476 t1_j80gnq9 wrote

Reply to comment by Manbadger in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 06, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

I think maybe the most productive read here might be some semiotics. To roughly summarize, at their inception Saussure held meaning (the signified) as separate from its method of communication (the signifier).

Saussure was more of a linguist, but his ideas were adopted by many of the more philosophical minded, particularly with the French crowd in the 20th century, especially Barthes and Derrida. They, particularly Derrida, championed the idea that the “meaning”, inherently only ever communicable via words or images, was itself merely another signifier. So there was no definite signified, only a web or “text” of interconnected signifiers.

Where you go from this conclusion is up to you. Barthes and Derrida ended up in different places philosophically. The part of your post that particularly made me think of them was when you spoke about active listening. It reminded me about of a time when I felt that some people understood what I would say and otherwise would not, based on their response. But with Barthes in mind now I mostly accept that what I was experiencing was the feeling of being listened to intently, and not that my words were an imperfect representation of deeper meaning which some people could grasp and others couldn’t.

Now in some ways this can be disillusioning, but at the same time, in ways reminiscent of Existentialism, also be freeing. These schools of philosophy are often set in opposition. But here I think they have similar takeaways. The text is the text, and once you stop looking for a deeper meaning you are free to explore, implore, and deploy at will. Meaning becomes tied to the fascinating structures of our existence. Language becomes a force of incredible cultural creation, allowed by some miracle of evolution. Not just a vessel through which we communicate.

Yes, as you discuss, these things are psychological, and many people and organizations are adept at manipulating psychology, but in order to continue to do so, they must constantly innovate. Why? Because we are so good at recognizing patterns that we become bored when shown the same thing twice. That’s why upon your second viewing of a movie you see it differently. The first impression and the second impression are equally valid, but some texts hold up better and others become transparent upon closer examination.

1

Manbadger t1_j81i1ru wrote

Did Derrida see the cognitive forming of a communicable signifier to be the same as the signifier expressed?

Physiologically an inner voice has similar brain activity as speech.

Thanks for the response. I have some dabbling to do!

1

Fantastic-Ad8476 t1_j8a4mwf wrote

You know I can’t say for sure. My inclination is to say that if he did have access to the 21st century neurolinguistic that we do he would probably not find them to alter his belief that “the text” was all consuming. My biggest crisis of confidence in semiotic thinking came when reading a piece on people who don’t have an inner monologue, and yet experience no real difference in linguistic ability. I will say I don’t think it was a particularly thorough article, but I do believe it’s accepted that there are people who can’t “hear” words inside their head.

Now, I did hear something else very interesting, in the same vein as what you mention about the brain activity of the inner voice—this time from the researcher himself being interviewed on a podcast. He said that when we read we actually imperceptibly speak the words we are reading. I think this provides a very interesting clue to consciousness. It could be seen as an echo reproduced from the recorded electrical signals (memory) of our brain.

This kind of interestingly ties in the-goku-special’s comment, because the question seems to then become: is the text just the phenomenological experience of the hypothetical reader?

But for Derrida, I think this would all make sense. Our brains, networks of nodes, electricity bouncing amount them—the effect, what we choose to call meaning or consciousness, if one chooses to see it within the same fabric of existence, within “the text”—there’s no difference.

So, essentially, yes I think Derrida would view the interior thought and the actual verbal signifier as distinct but closely related signifiers, which will produce unknown signification in whatever either cerebral cortices they encounter.

1

Manbadger t1_j8a86y1 wrote

I wonder if those people without an inner voice still read as if they were speaking the words? Or how do they read or listen?

There is a clinical name for people without an inner voice, but I forget what it’s called. Im reminded of Alexithymia and Aphantasia, if only because those are other phenomena where something is lacking in what is usually common.

1

the-goku-special t1_j84h9r2 wrote

Well put. I liked "Meaning becomes tied to the fascinating structures of our existence", but it does send me a bit down the rabbit hole with what those structures are and how they are shared.

1