Speaking of loving words, here are a few that i have added to the dictionary in my heart over the past month year or so. they all came to me in random and unrelated manners, however, i have come to notice a sort of spontaneous coherence to the list. they’re all… ‘esoteric,’ if you will? ‘energetic?’ ‘dynamic’ perhaps, would be most accurate.
these first two are peas in a pod. dovetailed, if you will. i find myself applying both most often sociologically:
parsimony: ironically, this concept is subtlely complex. the most succinct definition i have found to date is this (merriam-webster): economy in the use of mean to an end. In the scientific method, this would be best said as economy in explanation, and encourages constraint in the amount of parameters or variables–due to this, it has come to be greatly valued by applied staticians. However, as is emphasized in the relevant wiki article, it “only has meaning in a very specific context of inquiry…The reasonableness of parsimony in one research context may have nothing to do with its reasonableness in another. It is a mistake to think that there is a single global principle that spans diverse subject matter.” Indeed, it is obvious upon a little thought that the most simple explanation is most definitely not always the true one, and there have been numerous cases in which it could be argued that parsimony being considered general law has slowed and even stifled scientific progress (e.g., logical positivism vs. atomic theory to name only one example of many). After all, life is complex. Nonetheless, Occam’s razor (“entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”) has more often than not kept science grounded, as can be exemplified by the vast range of disciplines which have developed specified definitions of parsimony, e.g.: physics (special relativity, quantum mechanics), biogeography, statistics, mathematics, chemistry. Pardon a more intimate, albeit a little crude, slip into the personal: if there were any dimension in which i think there could be a truly applicable generality, it is human relational behaviour (read: he didn’t call b/c he’s just not that into you.)
serendipity: while considerably more straight forward, apparently serendipity is considered to be one of the top most difficult English words to translate. again, it is another one for which most definitions i found to be lacking (i.e.: “an aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident,” dictionary.com). perhaps (not?) surprisingly, wiki provides the most clear and concise rendition: “the effect by which one accidentally discovers something fortunate, especially while looking for something else entirely.” again, this is most commonly valued among the scientific community, for whom serendipitous discoveries are prolific, significant, and entirely credible. it is interesting to note, however, that the value of unexpected or accidental things are easily missed when one is looking for something else, and so it is well established that a “prepared and open mind is required” to detect or appreciate the value thereof. hence, it is often specialists and and/or interdisciplinary experts who discover serendipitous results of efforts. as already mentioned, i particularly love the reciprocal affirmation/tension between serendipity and parsimony. i find that when i accept the parsimonious social reality, i often realize a serendipitous benefit to the situation (to carry on the metaphor: the guy who isn’t really into you introduces you to a band that you love).
axiom: going with merriam-webster again on this one, since it covers all the bases with three definitions: 1) a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit, 2) a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference: postulate, 3) an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth. number 2 derives most directly from mathematics, which asserts that (other than tautologies, of which my comprehension is only minimal) “nothing can be deduced if nothing is assumed,” and therefore, the axiom is this basic assumption that is “accepted without demonstration.” This concept by definition requires a specific context or formula to which it is applied. However, over the last century or so, the perceived structuralist value of generalizing mathematical conceptualizations to the point of abstraction (leading to unlimited application) has increased, and at the most extreme, in field theory, an axiom can be considered more synonymous with constraint than postulate. The other two derive from traditional logic. The basic premises are that it should be “impossible to derive a contradiction from [an] axiom,” and “a set of axioms should also be non-redundant; an assertion that can be deduced from other axioms need not be regarded as an axiom.” And yet, the application of axiomatic dynamics as a logical system becomes so formulaic that logic functioning in this way could only be considered another branch of mathematics (see Euclidean geometry). Hence, it was the hope of modern logicians that a comprehensive collection (Cantor’s set) of axioms could be established as the basis for all mathematics. However, it was countered by Godel, who demonstrated that “that it is possible, for any sufficiently large set of axioms to construct a statement whose truth is independent of that set of axioms.” This can be more simply put as ‘the sum is greater than its parts.’ He also provided the corollary that the consistancy of an axiomatic set can never be ultimately proved. What attracts me the most to the history and application of this concept is the decisive role that intuition plays in the process of logic itself. Much of what i read on this topic discusses the ‘intuitive attraction’ between axioms and the tension that is created when our intuition is challenged by the limitations of logical formula. I like to explore this place where rationality meets its maker, if you will; the place where the known becomes un-. It is undeniable that everyone functions, if only subconsciously, under their own intuitive set of axioms, and on the rare occasion we are un/fortunate enough to have them challenged/disproven…the so-called foundation of our universe falls out from under us, and we’re left walking on air.
meme: Such a subtle, gorgeous word! Introduced in 1976 by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, as an expression to discuss the equivalent principles in the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena to that in genetic evolution. Very simply put, they are “unit[s] of cultural transmission or imitation.” They are replicators. Some original examples are: melodies, catch-phrases, and beliefs (notably religious belief), clothing/fashion, and the technology of building. Memeticists, as they have come to be called, have not been able to dis/prove the existence or mechanism of discrete meme units empirically, and therefore, unlike its counterpart genetics, the memetic theory is not included in the general social scientific concensus.
Nevertheless, the premise remains undeniably intriguing. In summary, it is claimed that memes evolve, similar to biological evolution, through natural selection. That is, “they spread through the behaviours that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propogate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate….memes which replicate the most effectively spread best, and some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.” This proposed mechanism implies culture to be an independent system of self-organization with an agenda for survival. I often struggle with this implication, and would posit that such a distinct term eludes direct definition becuase it simply functions as a convenient analogy for a dynamic and fluid process contained within our own day to day behaviour in which our sense of self is entirely enmeshed.
One of my favourite exemplary models of how memes evolve through time/space continuum by the imitation of one human of another is that of fables and rumours. Both of these categories of units are propogated because of their potential usefulness for survival (e.g. wartime rumours can directly directly change life and death situations, and fables are often folk wisdom preserved verbally as ficitonalized advice). The difference between how the two are spread is vertical vs. horizontal. Fables are passed slowly down through time from generation to generation, usually not spreading very far from their point of origin through populations. On the other hand, rumours spread quickly out among many in the population of one generation, but are often forgotten and no longer spread once they have served their purpose of warning, as it were. This clarifies the discrepancy: is “high-fidelity,” or quick, rote replication through space a memes’ ideal ‘goal?’ or is “low-fidelity:” slow and mutative imitation through time, more beneficial since survivial is key? or is it either/or? and since both kinds mutate beyond recognition (i.e. the telephone game), can they even be considered to be/have ever been a unit? But then again, can a gene? Whether or not all of this conjecture is ultimately just reductionist, the point that these theorists make is that we seemingly compusively do our part in both genetic and memetic propogation, whether they actually serve their purpose in aiding our well being or not, and that inquiry into this human reality can only help to learn more about the more puzzling aspects of culture (such as rascism).
In 1981, Lumsden and Wilson proposed that genes and culture co-evolve; each unit of biological culture corresponding to neuronal networks. Dawkins’ original three conditions for the evolution of memes were these: variation, or the introduction of new change to existing elements; heredity or replication, or the capacity to create copies of elements; differential “fitness”, or the opportunity for one element to be more or less suited to the environment than another. In 1996, Aaron Lynch provided 7 ‘general patterns of meme transmission’ which is comparably comprehensive and provides concise insight into how this phenomenal process is peceived by those who support it:
- Quantity of parenthood: an idea which influences the number of children one has. Children respond particularly receptively to the ideas of their parents, and thus ideas which directly or indirectly encourage a higher birthrate will replicate themselves at a higher rate than those that discourage higher birthrates.
- Efficiency of parenthood: an idea which increases the proportion of children who will adopt ideas of their parents. Cultural separatism exemplifies one practice in which one can expect a higher rate of meme-replication — because the meme for separation creates a barrier from exposure to competing ideas.
- Proselytic: ideas generally passed to others beyond one’s own children. Ideas that encourage the proselytism of a meme, as seen in many religious or political movements, can replicate memes horizontally through a given generation, spreading more rapidly than parent-to-child meme-transmissions do.
- Preservational: ideas which influence those that hold them to continue to hold them for a long time. Ideas which encourage longevity in their hosts, or leave their hosts particularly resistant to abandoning or replacing these ideas, enhance the preservability of memes and afford protection from the competition or proselytism of other memes.
- Adversative: ideas which influence those that hold them to attack or sabotage competing ideas and/or those that hold them. Adversative replication can give an advantage in meme transmission when the meme itself encourages aggression against other memes.
- Cognitive: ideas perceived as cogent by most in the population who encounter them. Cognitively transmitted memes depend heavily on a cluster of other ideas and cognitive traits already widely held in the population, and thus usually spread more passively than other forms of meme transmission. Memes spread in cognitive transmission do not count as self-replicating.
- Motivational: ideas that people adopt because they perceive some self-interest in adopting them. Strictly speaking, motivationally transmitted memes do not self-propagate, but this mode of transmission often occurs in association with memes self-replicated in the efficiency parental, proselytic and preservational modes.
my interest in cultural influence and pressure started during childhood, and i became aware of the fable/rumour model long before i ever heard the word meme. So while my method-obsessed side quivers at the thought of adhering to a proto or pseudo science, it does affirm a perception of the world i most likely adopted/inherited meme-style a la the alternative community i was born into. i have just recently begun diving into the wide variety of primary sources, and am most interested to hear input from anyone who has done the real reading and/or can provide a more compelling or credible argument for either side 🙂
Next is another hinged pair. These two comprise one of the philosophical mobius strips that have been keeping my brain continually boggled for the last few months…
neumenon: (pl. a) the most concise and encompassing definition I could find for this Kantian concept comes from a really cute little online dictionary called ninja words : (n) a thing as it is independently of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind; a thing-in-itself, postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable. This is considered in comparison to phenomenon, which is the thing as it is perceived by the observer. Thus the noumenal is entirely unpenetrable to humanity other than through practical (vs. speculative) reason. Kant posits that this practical reasoning (i.e. to act as a moral agent) “makes no sense unless a noumenal world is postulated in which freedom, God, and immortality abide” (Britannica). Since my jury is still indefinitely out on the whole ethical-morality issue, this continues to be one of my favourite pieces of experiential meat to chew. Also might be of some help if I read the primary source at some point 🙂
qualia: Let’s look at the flipside. In the broadest accepted sense, qualia can be defined as the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives (Stanford). In other words, they are the qualities that characterize experience; they are what make something ‘what it is like’. This is a concept best conveyed through example: the most simple being colour. The quale of red is its redness. Most famously, T. Nagle depicted this experiential dynamic with bat sonar. He argued that no matter how well versed you were in the biology and function of a bat’s sonar system, you can never know what it is like to percieve an object using it. The inherent subjectivity of qualia has created a substantial philosophical argument regarding as to whether or not they actually exist. Like our inability to even conceive of the noumenal quality of any given object, the qualia of either a thing or an experience (it is disputed as to what a quale belongs, if they do indeed exist) are intangible and ineffable; there is no objective method for which to analyse them, which drives the physicalists crazy ;).
And we’ll finish with a few fun ‘Bonus Words,’ lol:
incalcitrant: this has long been among those words i use intuitively without knowing precisely what i am saying or if it is exactly appropriate (while assuming that it is approximate). i only truly get my curiosity piqued in these cases if i find myself using such a term frequently b/c the continued uncertainty drives me to affirm my usage. And voila, what do i discover upon inquiry, but a great depiction of how this exact instinctual linguistic process occurs on a larger English cultural scale! Take a gander, b/c this fellow does is better than i could. Especially towards the end where i find his formal linguistic description to relate directly to the sort of “roll around my mouth” subconscious processing that occurs while i am speaking/writing. This dynamic is truly pointing @ some axiom (yay!) of contrived logic around the construction/inheritance of language and the lagacies therein. I will have to give it some considerable thought since this topic is still just a relatively opaque fog at the back of my head (which is how all the great ones start!)
polydundant: i originally knew this meaning under the term ‘etymologically redundant expressions,’ but came upon this much more satisfying and concise term on Erin Kean’s blog. Apparently she picked the term up at the Pop!Tech conference for new technology. Her definition is as follows: “a phrase that is redundant through the use of words from two or more languages that have the same meaning.” I would like to note that the redundancy comes from the multilingual marriage, and the majority of cases do not qualify as pleonasms (the use of more words or word-parts than are necessary for clear expression, wherein an idea clearly implied in one word is needlessly repeated in another: e.g. cold ice, or burning fire). my all time fave in english is sharia law (sharia means law in Arabic). Chai tea and naan bread are exactly the same, and are commonly used (tea tea and bread bread). Some newly discovered and amusing ones include head chef (apparently chef, and the english word chief, both derive from the french word for head, tete); and rice paddy (padi is malay for rice).
phatic: sociolinguistic term (Malinowski, 1923) for ‘small talk.’ Oxford puts it nicely: speech “used to convey general sociability, rather than to communicate any real meaning.” so discussion of the weather, greetings, the mention of events are generally all conversation for its own sake as a social skill, and therefore phatic. Wiki asserts that it is a bonding ritual, and also a strategy for managing interpersonal distance. It constitutes as a speech act. I picked up on this term in a book I am reading on literary theory by Terry Eagleton; he puts it quite elegantly: phatic communication has “a concern with the act of communication itself. In chatting to you about the weather I am also signalling that I regard conversation with you valuable [to some extent], that I consider you a worthwhile person to talk to, that I am not myself anti-social or about to embark on a detailed critique of your personal appearance.” ahahaha. funny ’cause it’s true. but most interestingly, he then adds: “In this sense, there is no possibility of a wholly disinterested [or objective] statement.” Every word we speak includes some level of value-judgement. Derived from the Greek phanai, which is ‘to speak,’ it seems to have been adopted by the theorists to serve this purpose of definition rather than having logically evolved (unlike emphasis/tic).