-
Language Mirrors Relational Positions in Recovery: A Response to Commentaries by Falzer and Davidson, Gillett, and Suppes
- Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- Volume 9, Number 2, June 2002
- pp. 137-140
- 10.1353/ppp.2003.0034
- Article
- Additional Information
- Purchase/rental options available:
Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 9.2 (2002) 137-140
[Access article in PDF]
Language Mirrors Relational Positions in Recovery:
A Response to Commentaries by Falzer and Davidson, Gillett, and Suppes
C. W. van Staden
THE FIRST PART OF MY RESPONSE to the commentaries on my earlier paper is about the place of language and logical systems in the understanding of the personal positions that recovering patients occupy in their life experiences. It includes the main reasons for using Frege's philosophy. Thereafter, I make the point that relational positions in recovery extend broader than positions of actor and patient.
Language as Mirror
The relationship between the expressions of relations in language and the relations of everyday life is the main theme of the commentary by Falzer and Davidson. Their principal concern is about the feasibility of using the former "logical system" as "foundation" for the everyday relations of life relevant to recovery. I agree with them that using language in such a way might lack the "latitude to appreciate the variegations of every day life—with vagueness, ambiguity and complexity intact."
However, I did not use language and logic as "foundation" for everyday relations of life. Quite the contrary, my approach contrasts to such primacy given to language in conventional approaches. Conventional approaches, underlined by the concern of Falzer and Davidson, have examined meaning as if it originates from language expressions. For example, in the conventional approaches of Russell (1984, 87), Strawson (1974), set theory (Suppes 1960), and syntax theory (Chomsky 1965), the order in which relata are expressed, is primary: Meaning is said to change if the order in which the relata are expressed were to be changed (in asymmetric or nonsymmetric relational expressions).
My work in contrast (notwithstanding the value of the above approaches) looks at meaning originating from relations rather than relational expressions. For example, meaning contained in actual relations was considered primary in describing the alpha and omega relational positions 1 within actual relations. These positions in [End Page 137] relations may be occupied even without them being expressed at all. I also described that the order in which relata are expressed, if expressed at all, follows from the meaning of the actual relation rather than vice versa. Furthermore, I reiterated that the alpha and omega positions are not, in the first place, grammatical positions. In fact, the positions of the relata were described as identical in symmetrical relations such as "x is the neighbor of y" in which both x and y occupy alpha positions (being both owners of the neighborship), even though the positions (of x and y)can be grammatically discerned as subject and object positions, respectively.
This approach is thus very much grounded in everyday relations of life, notwithstanding that these relations and their properties are explored through their (incomplete) presentation in language. A metaphor may be helpful here: the expressions of relations in language are taken as if they are a mirror (rather than foundation) of the relations of everyday life.
This metaphor helps to distinguish between a "defective mirror" and a "defective image" seen in the mirror, or then relevant to recovery, a distinction between the shortcomings of language and shifts in relational positions as seen within language use. This is an important distinction in considering the concerns of Falzer and Davidson, who mention shortcomings of language, especially an ideal logical language, which is riddled with vagueness, ambiguity, and insufficiency to give precise expression to meanings and relations. These are the shortcomings of the mirror, which may reduce the clarity of what is seen in the mirror. I contend, though, much could nonetheless be identified correctly in the mirror—language—despite its shortcomings.
The mirror metaphor also helps in the consideration of language usage among patients suffering from schizophrenia. Falzer and Davidson refer to a variety of language deficits that are well known among these patients. These include problems of articulating clear references and language production. Deficits in these patients' language usage are to be distinguished from the deficits and patterns in their relations...