ANTH245 2007-09-24: Difference between revisions

From Dickinson College Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(46 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[ANTH245|<< Go back to main page]]
{{ANTH245_2007_NAV}}


= Business =
= Business =
* Responses ...


= Recap =
= Recap =
* The transformational process
== The transformational process ==
* The canonical formula of myth
* Review the basic idea of how the linear order is translated into a structural pattern
** A primary and unmediable opposition is posited and successively replaced by more mediable categories, e.g.
0. LIEF : DEATH &rarr; ???
1. LIFE : DEATH :: FARMING : WARFARE
2. FARMING : WARFARE &rarr; HUNTING
3. HUNTING replaces WARFARE
4. FARMING : HUNTING :: HERBIVORES : CARNIVORES
5. HERBIVORES : CARNIVORES &rarr; SCAVENGERS (e.g. Raven, Coyote)
6. ERGO, Ravens symbolize overcoming the opposition between life and death
* A logic of symbols
** '''Animals are good to think with'''
** Compare to ''dialectic''
** Compare to [[wikipedia:Chiasmus|chiasmus]]
 
== The canonical formula of myth ==
* Explain what the formula means (unpack it into three transforms)
** x(a) : y(b) :: x(b) : a<sup>-1</sup>(y)
0. x(a) : y(b)
1. x(b) : y(a)    REVERSAL of arguments (a,b)
2. x(b) : a(y)    REVERSAL of function and argument (a,y)
3. x(b) : 1/a(y)  INVERSION of function a(y)
* Example?
* Briefly mention Mosko's work
 
== Who is communicating with whom? ==
* Describe the process as a two-stage operation
** Story is received and parsed for consciousness consumption
** Generates a second story, which is parsed for unconscious consumption
* The big question -- In the case of the second process, ''who communicates with whom''?


= Segue =
= Segue =
* Taking Levi-Strauss seriously
== The Computer as symbol and as tool ==
* Databases as representative of structure
* Taking Levi-Strauss' references to the computer seriously
== Computing and the Database ==
* All of L-S's references to cybernetics and computing are really references to computing
* Databases represent structure
* Databases represent (logical) possibility


= Colby =
= Colby =
* General Inquirer System
[[Image:BRL61-0548.jpg|thumb]] 
* Coding methods
== General Inquirer System ==
* Cultural Grammars
* The [[wikipedia:IBM_7094|IBM 7090]]
** 32K addressable memory / $3M (in 1960s dollars!)
** See also [http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/7090.html this] and [http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP7090.html this].
* [http://www.webuse.umd.edu:9090/ Current system]
** EXERCISE:
*** Pick an essay and dump it in
*** Discuss results
 
== The Process ==
* Text + Thesaurus (Dictionary) + Rules
* Word counts
* Correlations
 
=== Text ===
* 9,000 stories
* 5 culture areas
* Translated into English
 
=== Dictionary ===
* Three categories
*# Hi freq && polysemous
*# Med freq && polysemous
*# Monosemous
* Mapped to themes
** Based on [[wikipedia:Clyde_Kluckhohn|Clyde Kluckhon's]] categories
** Binary
** Later called "conceptual domains"
 
=== Rules ===
* Actually a SQL join ...
* leftover words become "feedback data"
 
== Results ==
* Exkimo = Traval/Place, Perception
* Kwaikiutl = Travel/Place
* Egypt = Social Power
* India = Affective/Rational
* China = Affective/Rational
== Observations ==
* Note role of feedback
* Flattening of stories unless filtered ahead of time
** E.g. bimodal results may be the result of conflating two story types
 
== Cultural Patterns ==
* Discuss the model
* "Culture Models"
** These mediate human communication and interaction
* Patterns and Templates
** Encoding/Decoding
* PUT ON BOARD
** Mimics method
 
== Comparisons ==
* L-S
** Same premises, different units and rules
*** Premises: structure = elements + rules
*** Units: mythemes vs. words that signify conceptual domains
* Rappaport
** Compare culture patterns and schema to R's sacred propositions
* Bateson
** Patterns


= Selby =
= Selby =
== The ETHNOGRAPH ==
* QDA software
* Instead of myths, field notes and transcriptions of discourse
* A kind of data mining
* http://www.qualisresearch.com/default.htm
== The Method: Noticing, Collecting, Thinking ==
* Iterative and Progressive -- i.e.cybernetic (an index of the pervasiveness of the ideology)
* Recursive (self-referential?)
* Holographic (part/whole)
=== Noticing ===
* Two levels: patterns and codes
* Patterns are recorded (and selected)
* Codes are discerned in the patterns
=== Collecting ===
* Puzzle analogy --> See L-S on the camshaft
* Assemble the codes into a larger framework
** e.g. L-S's matrices ...
=== Thinking ===
* Thinking about the larger framework (e.g. L-S's canonical formula of myth)
* Understanding the "holes"
* Left-brain
== Questions ==
* What is the status of the codes?
** Heuristic vs. Objective status of the codes
* What is the status of the interpretation?
= Tobin and the HRAF =
== The HRAF ==
* http://pulproxy.princeton.edu/connect
* Murdock's World Atlas
=== The OWC ===
* See book
* Compare to Colby, Selby ...
* BECOMING REFLEXIVE NOW ...
== What is a computer? ==
== Why the controversy? ==
* The status of "codes"
* Violence to texts


= Themes =
= Themes =


== Text and Code ==
== Text and Code ==
== Heuristic vs Objectivist ==
== Cybernetics of Interpretation ==


== The Function and Image of the Database ==
== The Function and Image of the Database ==
Line 26: Line 162:
== Ontology vs. Discourse ==
== Ontology vs. Discourse ==


= HRAF =
 


= Observations =
= Observations =

Latest revision as of 17:28, 24 September 2007

Go to Main Page

Business

  • Responses ...

Recap

The transformational process

  • Review the basic idea of how the linear order is translated into a structural pattern
    • A primary and unmediable opposition is posited and successively replaced by more mediable categories, e.g.
0. LIEF : DEATH → ???
1. LIFE : DEATH :: FARMING : WARFARE 
2. FARMING : WARFARE → HUNTING
3. HUNTING replaces WARFARE
4. FARMING : HUNTING :: HERBIVORES : CARNIVORES
5. HERBIVORES : CARNIVORES → SCAVENGERS (e.g. Raven, Coyote)
6. ERGO, Ravens symbolize overcoming the opposition between life and death 
  • A logic of symbols
    • Animals are good to think with
    • Compare to dialectic
    • Compare to chiasmus

The canonical formula of myth

  • Explain what the formula means (unpack it into three transforms)
    • x(a) : y(b) :: x(b) : a-1(y)
0. x(a) : y(b)
1. x(b) : y(a)    REVERSAL of arguments (a,b)
2. x(b) : a(y)    REVERSAL of function and argument (a,y)
3. x(b) : 1/a(y)  INVERSION of function a(y)
  • Example?
  • Briefly mention Mosko's work

Who is communicating with whom?

  • Describe the process as a two-stage operation
    • Story is received and parsed for consciousness consumption
    • Generates a second story, which is parsed for unconscious consumption
  • The big question -- In the case of the second process, who communicates with whom?

Segue

The Computer as symbol and as tool

  • Taking Levi-Strauss' references to the computer seriously

Computing and the Database

  • All of L-S's references to cybernetics and computing are really references to computing
  • Databases represent structure
  • Databases represent (logical) possibility

Colby

General Inquirer System

  • The IBM 7090
    • 32K addressable memory / $3M (in 1960s dollars!)
    • See also this and this.
  • Current system
    • EXERCISE:
      • Pick an essay and dump it in
      • Discuss results

The Process

  • Text + Thesaurus (Dictionary) + Rules
  • Word counts
  • Correlations

Text

  • 9,000 stories
  • 5 culture areas
  • Translated into English

Dictionary

  • Three categories
    1. Hi freq && polysemous
    2. Med freq && polysemous
    3. Monosemous
  • Mapped to themes

Rules

  • Actually a SQL join ...
  • leftover words become "feedback data"

Results

  • Exkimo = Traval/Place, Perception
  • Kwaikiutl = Travel/Place
  • Egypt = Social Power
  • India = Affective/Rational
  • China = Affective/Rational

Observations

  • Note role of feedback
  • Flattening of stories unless filtered ahead of time
    • E.g. bimodal results may be the result of conflating two story types

Cultural Patterns

  • Discuss the model
  • "Culture Models"
    • These mediate human communication and interaction
  • Patterns and Templates
    • Encoding/Decoding
  • PUT ON BOARD
    • Mimics method

Comparisons

  • L-S
    • Same premises, different units and rules
      • Premises: structure = elements + rules
      • Units: mythemes vs. words that signify conceptual domains
  • Rappaport
    • Compare culture patterns and schema to R's sacred propositions
  • Bateson
    • Patterns

Selby

The ETHNOGRAPH

The Method: Noticing, Collecting, Thinking

  • Iterative and Progressive -- i.e.cybernetic (an index of the pervasiveness of the ideology)
  • Recursive (self-referential?)
  • Holographic (part/whole)

Noticing

  • Two levels: patterns and codes
  • Patterns are recorded (and selected)
  • Codes are discerned in the patterns

Collecting

  • Puzzle analogy --> See L-S on the camshaft
  • Assemble the codes into a larger framework
    • e.g. L-S's matrices ...

Thinking

  • Thinking about the larger framework (e.g. L-S's canonical formula of myth)
  • Understanding the "holes"
  • Left-brain

Questions

  • What is the status of the codes?
    • Heuristic vs. Objective status of the codes
  • What is the status of the interpretation?

Tobin and the HRAF

The HRAF

The OWC

  • See book
  • Compare to Colby, Selby ...
  • BECOMING REFLEXIVE NOW ...

What is a computer?

Why the controversy?

  • The status of "codes"
  • Violence to texts

Themes

Text and Code

Heuristic vs Objectivist

Cybernetics of Interpretation

The Function and Image of the Database

Ontology vs. Discourse

Observations