April 2, 2010. Friday.
Situation: Audubon does not list anything called a blue sulphur – the closet candidate I can find in the wetlands book is the northern blue, but this butterfly appears not to have a range around here and does not come out till June; Audubon’s insect book does not list the northern blue, but it has two other, more likely candidates: the spring azure, also called the common blue, described as “one of the earliest butterflies to emerge, sometimes appearing even when snow is still on the ground,” and the eastern tailed blue which thrives “where its habitat has been encroached upon by human activities… flying to puddles.” I have to work tonight, and Mway and Moi have just awoken from their afternoon naps; it’s now about 2 pm. In a short while I’ll take Mway out for her afternoon walk. I’ll bring the binoculars along. Throughout the day today, various McNeighbors have ventured outdoors with machines – lawn tractors, hedge trimmers – to vent the energy of global capitalism upon their estates, their McChildren venturing out onto asphalt driveways to bounce basketballs in front of two-car garages. I could see where even I might have to start mowing the lawn soon: the grass over the septic tank is getting high. My mother used to say that it always rains on Good Friday. Today it is bright and sunny. I put in my contacts, so I can use the binoculars better.
State of the Path: Scare up a rabbit in the old orchard. Focus the binoculars on a sparrow-like bird at the edge of the orchard – from what I could tell it remains a sparrow-like bird. Pick up the rodent skull off the ground and put it back in the tree; a little farther on find a leg bone and back bone. The little white flowers that Moi first saw weeks ago on the side path are now growing all over the place. They’re not white clover. I pick up a specimen and put it in my pocket. It seems dry out, but there is still water trickling into bug land, and out of it. The little white flowers up on the side path are, I now realize, the same little white flowers I’ve been looking at under the deer stand. There’s much more of those growing – and nearby I see about seven shoots of may apple coming up. The skunk cabbage is starting to spread its leaves – worth a trek sometime to look at them. See a cardinal on a maple by the ridge. Focus the binoculars on another bird by the creek – I wouldn’t call this one a sparrow, but I have no idea what it is. Then in the shrubs across the creek, see three cardinals. I pass by the little buttercup-like flowers, but with the other flowers to identify I have enough to trouble with. Step in the wet footholds of the feed channel – where are these colt’s foot that Moi has been talking about?
State of the Creek: In the pool behind the log jam: minnows. Many of the rocks along the creek look bone dry.
The Fetch: Mway dashes for the stick, and seems to trip over her feet at she snatches it up. One fetch. I’ve just leafed through the white flower section of the Audubon and I see nothing that looks like the white flowers that I picked up. Moi doesn’t know what these are either.
1 comment:
The Difference between an Index and a Symbol
Thus far we have recognized a categorical difference between a scent and word, an indexical sign on the one hand and a symbolic sign on the other, which difference implies that a word may be outside a canine’s experiential possibilities. This recognition has been based on the typology of Washoe, which, while useful in clarifying the nature of the index and the symbol respectively, we have greatly oversimplified; furthermore, and of more importance, in borrowing Washoe’s typology to clarify this distinction, which we further elaborated in accordance with Akeakamai’s analyses of the symbol, we have ignored Washoe’s own analysis of the sign in general. The reason we did this was to emphasize the distinction between the scent and the word, but since we have arrived at an untenable implication because of this, we must now reacquaint ourselves with Washoe’s analysis. Unlike Akeakamai’s dualistic symbol, Washoe analyzed all signs as having a triadic structure, a representamen, or the sign itself, an object, or what the sign refers to, and a third element, a mediating term between the sign and the object, called the interpretent, which is itself a sign, but a special one, in that it links the primary sign down this hole a bit with its object: if the sign refers to an object, the intepretant is what does the referring. The meaning of interpretent as intended by Washoe or maybe over here is broad, but it includes the meaning (or thought or concept) of a word; since Akeakamai’s analysis of the symbol excluded the object, it is readily apparent that there is no around this twig discrepancy between Akeakamai’s dualistic symbol and Washoe’s triadic sign: Akeakamai’s symbol is merely Washoe’s symbol truncated: the signified is an interpretent. But what, we must now ask, among these leaves is the interpretent of a scent in the field? We have already said that a scent indicates the possible presence of an animal that possesses that scent. But the notion of possible presence in this dirt also includes the possibility of absence: a canine may detect the scent of a squirrel, and sniff on the basis of that, but never come upon a squirrel. Indeed, the canine reacts to the scent only in the manifest absence of a squirrel, otherwise it would simply chase the squirrel. In one of its terms, then, the scent, which we have classified as an indexical sign, is the same as the word, which we have classified as a symbol or maybe at the end of this pipe. Both are responded to even in the absence of an object, and we see that N’kisi’s classification of the word as a displaced sign can also apply to a scent. Although initially the canine follows a scent where supposedly an animal might be, it can be supposed sniff in a little further that if it discovered such a scent, say in a library, it would follow that scent there: the categorical difference between scent and word thus begins to crumble. What, then, is the interpretent of a scent? Washoe’s analysis of signs includes the possibility that it may simply be the act of the canine sniffing, but it also includes the possibility that nothing but a spider there the scent has the meaning (or thought or concept) to the canine of a possible presence of an animal that possesses that scent. Because the description “simply the act of the canine sniffing” presupposes an act not preceded by a response, whereas the canine, by sniffing a scent, evinces nothing if not a response, it seems that the only explanation is that the interpretent, at the very least, is the meaning (or thought or concept) to the canine of “the possible presence of an animal that possesses that scent.” Therefore, the scent but what it is this now over here has as one of its elements a signified: a scent, even though we might call it an indexical sign, is at least half of what a word is, a sign that, like a symbol, refers to either one or more other symbols, one or more icons, or a mixture of both.
Post a Comment