Amerindian Arts Native American News & Information: 3/25/07

Ontologically and epistemically, for the Zuni, logos is deeply embedded in substance. As Young states, “…Zuni perceptions and interpretations of rock art reveal much about the Zuni world view…” . Clarification is needed in regard to this statement however, for while “perceptions and interpretations” may be revealed conceptually and have a strong intersubjective basis visually (ostensively), the lack of a naming process indicates the strong presence of contextual implications where non-verbal expression is preferable when reference is indeterminate, for a deviant utterance may be the manifestation of the dangerous and subsequently the aesthetic is expressed as a communal act of appreciation visually.

There are some points to be made here in regard to the naming process; 1) because intersubjective objectivity can be revealed conceptually and non-verbally a linguistic relativism approach is preferable to a linguistic universalism, 2) given the extent of metaphor and analogy in reference to particular objects or figures in Zuni language and ritual a possible world semantics is inappropriate, and 3) Young’s assertion that “one cannot separate Zuni sacred and secular life” is incorrect in view of non-verbal aesthetic expression.

Concerning (1), for the language universalist the ineffability thesis of semantics states that one cannot discuss the relationships that constitute the meanings of words and other expressions of language because it is an inescapable intermediary between me and the world, and one with which I cannot dispense, meaning that I cannot “step outside my language (and the conceptual system it embodies) and view it from the outside” . The universality of language to the language universalist means that language is “inescapable”. Everything we say and (according to some philosophers) think presupposes the one language we are using, including the semantic relations in virtue of which it can be used to say something. We can only say things about our language by using that which we suppose in order to do so, i.e. our own language. Language of the user constitutes the language user’s universe. What lies outside of the language is not only inexpressible, but is meaningless.

The totality of the relationships that constitute the meanings of words and other expressions of language is semantics. The relation between simple objects and their names is presupposed in all use of language and because of this we have to treat the actual objects as existing necessarily and as necessarily exhausting the entire realm of all possible objects . These relationships that are the links between language and reality cannot, according to universalist, be rationalized for “semantic ideas can only be conveyed non-verbally…non-conceptually. They rely on an unexpressed and unexplainable preconceptual Vorwissen” .

Herein lies a crucial distinction, for Young notes that where ambiguity is present in both meaning and form, “the power invoked through particular images…may at times be metaphorical or ambiguous, but their form rarely is” and power is the power to invoke narrative of myth and the time of the beginning. Young’s specific meaning of “form” is basically that of shapes and is representative of universality. If the formal aspect of an object is what can be said to be true of it a priori, then the form of simple objects governs the way in which these objects can be combined with each other (elements of design) and form complex logical forms (patterns of design). If a culture’s ontological taxonomic structure admits of an animate matter, or more precisely, if the culture’s language has no means of expressing explicitly the distinction between the animate and the inanimate, and a totality of relations between things is referred to as a sameness of all things, then it would seem to admit of an a prior intersubjectivity in these relations. Semantic ideas are conveyed conceptually for “the power inherent in those images that depict being associated by the Zuni with vital aspects of the physical world is related to their specificity-their ability to ‘represent’ ” living beings” . For the Zuni, personification is inherent in the substance of animate matter and has existed since “the beginning”. Ontology is then relative to personalization (as distinct from personification), individuation and context, where ‘to be’, in Hintikka’s terms, is to be the object of a search and to “find” as an act of quantification may be better served by the verb “to produce” . ‘To be’ is to be somewhere and is a relation that concedes to the eternal possibility of an existence. Thus, when an image may be recognized and categorized according to its form, even when labeled as “unknown” by the lack of content, it is still possible to convey semantic ideas conceptually according to principles that inhibit the tendency to render a deviant utterance, and can further be conveyed ostensively, where knowledge and aesthetic appreciation is dependent upon one’s cultural assimilation.

The language universalist would not accept a doctrine that subscribes to semantic ideas conveyed conceptually and would, at least in the case of Wittgenstein, for example, limit context to the meaning a word gains in its usage in the language. In the case of the Zuni, where meaning can be expressed non-verbally, the lack of a name would, according to the universalist, preclude ascertaining an existent’s identity. Both universalist and relativist would probably agree that ‘the bridge between the subjective and the objective is the observer who is also a participant. There is no universe with an observer and no observer who is not a part of the universe of description. The identity of the two is not, nor can never be identical” (*). Friedrich continues that the role of the observer is also that of the participant and in a manner similar to the Heisenberg principle can effect the outcome of observation, i.e. the participant’s description. In this Friedrich is establishing the perspective taker as an efficient cause that has been eliminated in the universalist position. For assuming that semantic ideas could be conveyed conceptually and non-verbally, then same name usage is not sufficient to establish identity and ontological status. Identity is then dependent upon other, perhaps pragmatic interpretations of the form and function of things as relations of semantic ideas and to the universalist the subject becomes transcendent, in Kantian terms, and interpretation is meaningless.

In order to further clarify this position, Friedrich states that reality involves the 'I' and the external world; organic life and the physical universe. The bridge between the subjective and the objective is the observer who is also the participant. The relation of the subject and object is, in Kantian terms, the transcendental ('I think'), and to Friedrich, one of continuity. To disregard the continuity is to remove the 'I' from the experiential world and place it as an observer of the universe, and reference and meaning becomes transcendent (not transcendental). The effect of continuity is necessarily one where the participant affects description. Meaning and reference can never be identical, i.e. 'A is A' is never the case and is unreal. The disruption of the continuity yields a subjectivity that is just as fallacious as the positivistic reality ('A is A') of the external world. While it is evident that both the linguistic relativist and universalist alike agree that one cannot step outside their language in order to describe the world, there is a point of disagreement. The relativist would argue that since meaning and reference can never be identical, communication is only viable with non-verbal conveyance of semantic concepts, that is, if 'A is not A' then verbal signification is not ostensive and meaning must rely on what the universalist would consider pre-conceptual. The universalist would also consider that a non-verbal conveyance of semantic ideas as conceptual is transcendent (in effect, the transcendental bridge is transcendent). On the other hand, the relativist would view this as a confusion of the transcendent and the transcendental, for the universalist, in considering same name usage as identity, would be asserting that 'A is A', and this is itself transcendent by the standard of the relativist. As an outside observer, Young commented on the "metaphor and ambiguity" in the multireferentiality of the Zuni base metaphor. This is the fallacy of a “universe with an observer”, for while the Zuni may consider an image or name as ambiguous if the context is not certain, they would not consider the perceived uncertainty of multireferentiality as metaphoric, but as an integral part of the schematics of their transcendental bridge. In Young's defense, the language used was the language that could be understood by colleagues, much in the same sense that Cushing used the term "savage."

Hintikka also cites the “mutual dependence of linguistic relativity (impossibility of expressing reality as it is, considered independently of our language) and the ineffability thesis of semantics”, and would probably describe Friedrich’s position as generally stating the paradox of transcendental knowledge (**) . The language universalist and the relativist would however, disagree on the role of the participant, and in Kantian terminology, would also disagree on the constitution of the transcendental subject defined as the logic of scientific language. While Kant would assert that possession of the concept of a thing is dependent upon knowing the “use” of an object given in intuition and this cognition is a prerequisite to consciousness , Wittgenstein would appropriately call this transcendental but as a transcendental subject it is also something that does not exist in the world , an allusion that Kant would refer to as an interpretation of the transcendent and not the transcendental (***).

(*) Friedrich, Paul. “Linguistic Relativity”. In Linguistic Anthropology: Essays in Honor of Harry Hoijer. Ed. By Jacques Marquet. Malibu: Undera, 1980, p.98. The prerequisites of Friedrich's position can be found in his discussion of the "principle of arbitrariness of the language" or the "arbitrariness of the symbol." ("The Lexical Symbol." In Linguistics and Anthropology in Honor of C. F. Voeglin. Ed. by M. Dale Kinkade, Kenneth Hale, and Oswald Werner. Peter De Ridler Press, 1975, pp. 199-247.) Friedrich argues for the non-arbitrary in the objective semantic character of language and the subjective intuitions of the speaker, stating that this is necessary for the transition from positivism to formal structuralism. The inclusion of an interpreter (i.e. observer) is an important distinction between positivist theories and those of a "mentalistic cast", and the controversy between idealistic and materialistic conceptions of meaning could be avoided by recognizing that different semantic systems, and specifically, systems of lexical symbols, are differently related to reality (Friedrich citing Sapir, "Language and Environment." American Anthropologist. 14:226-42, 1912. ). The internal consistency of a semantic system is a diachronic development, generated as symbols are aligned with different categories. A symbol may denote an image, which in turn can be multi-referential, but relativity at the individual level is foregone by a series of alternate explanations and the correspondence of semantic schemata and internal consistency is the result of a common purpose. The effect of reducing lexicology to syntax is to ignore socio-cultural systems and increase the theoretical role of arbitrariness in linguistic theory. The position of the thing interpreted is in terms of linguistic code and must be presumed to belong to an external world that is ordered and non-arbitrary. It would appear then that the thing interpreted is semantic at all levels. What may be questionable is, if semantic values are continuous as a consequence of the interaction of lexemes in their diverse constructions and occurrences (multireferentiality and combinatory meaning in the form of underlying propositions) within a socio-cultural setting, then to what degree is the indexical inventory distinguished from non-egocentric obstensiveness once symbolism is conventional. That is, is diachronic development terminated in identity, e.g. same name usage, or is there still a role of the interpreter in distinguishing perhaps between the use of a word and the use of the thing which the word denotes.

(**) Hintikka, 1973, p.166. The paradox of transcendental knowledge has an intrinsic link and mutual implication between, 1) the unknowability of things considered in themselves independently of our knowledge seeking activities and the conceptual framework they utilize; and, 2) the unknowability of these activities and of this framework. The linguistic counterpart to the epistemic paradox is the “mutual dependence of linguistic relativity (impossibility of expressing reality as it is, considered independently of our language) and the ineffability of language”. According to Hintikka the transcendental paradox is “Kant’s fallacy”. The “semantic turn” is that unknowability cannot be expressed apart from the language (Hintikka 1981: 377). Hintikka, Jaakko. “Wittgenstein’s Semantical Kantianism”. Proceeding of the Fifth International Wittgenstein Symposium: Ethics, Foundations, Problems, and Applications. Pp. 375-390. Ed. by E. Morscher and Rudolph Stranzinger. Holder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1981.

(***) For the distinction between transcendent and transcendental, see Strawson, Peter F. Bounds of Sense. London: Methuen, 1966:18.

Dreamcatcher Origin Story – Ojibwa

Long ago in the ancient world of the Ojibwe Nation, the Clans were all located in one general area of that place known as Turtle Island. This is the way that the old Ojibwe storytellers say how Asibikaashi (Spider Woman) helped Wanabozhoo bring giizis (sun) back to the people. To this day, Asibikaashi will build her special lodge before dawn. If you are awake at dawn, as you should be, look for her lodge and you will see this miracle of how she captured the sunrise as the light sparkles on the dew which is gathered there.

Asibikaasi took care of her children, the people of the land, and she continues to do so to this day. When the Ojibwe Nation dispersed to the four corners of North America, to fill a prophecy, Asibikaashi had a difficult time making her journey to all those cradle boards, so the mothers, sisters and Nokomis (grandmothers) took up the practice of weaving the magical webs for the new babies using willow hoops and sinew or cordage made from plants. It is in the shape of a circle to represent how giizis travels each day across the sky.

The dream catcher will filter out all the bad bawedjigewin (dreams) and allow only good thoughts to enter into our minds when we are just abinooji.

You will see a small hole in the center of each dream catcher where those good bawadjige may come through. With the first rays of sunlight, the bad dreams would perish. When we see little asibikaashi, we should not fear her, but instead respect and protect her. In honor of their origin, the number of points where the web connected to the hoop numbered eight for Spider Woman's eight legs or seven for the Seven Prophecies.

It was traditional to put a feather in the center of the dream catcher; it means breath, or air. It is essential for life. A baby watching the air playing with the feather on her cradleboard was entertained while also being given a lesson on the importance of good air. This lesson comes forward in the way that the feather of the owl is kept for wisdom (a woman's feather) and the eagle feather is kept for courage (a man's feather). This is not to say that the use of each is restricted by gender, but that to use the feather each is aware of the gender properties she/he is invoking. The use of gem stones, as we do in the ones we make for sale, is not something that was done by the old ones. Government laws have forbidden the sale of feathers from our sacred birds, so using four gem stones, to represent the four directions, and the stones used by western nations were substituted by us. The woven dream catchers of adults do not use feathers.

Dream catchers made of willow and sinew are for children, and they are not meant to last. Eventually the willow dries out and the tension of the sinew collapses the dream catcher. That's supposed to happen. It belies the temporary-ness of youth. Adults should use dream catchers of woven fiber which is made up to reflect their adult "dreams." It is also customary in many parts of Canada and the Northeastern U.S. to have the dream catchers be a tear-drop/snow shoe shape.

The above story is a combination of information gathered by Lyn Dearborn from California, and Mary Ritchie of the Northern Woodlands, with assistance from Canadian elders. Miigwetch

http://groups.msn.com/KeeperofStories/
Reprinted by permission

Zuni fetish updates from Amerindian Arts

Todd Westika, 3-16-2007, lapis, stichtite, egyptian marble, turquoise bears and buffaloes
Andres Quandelacy, 3-1-2007, baltic amber fetishes, pink opal horse pendant
Ernie Mackel, 2-27-2007
Gibbs Othole, 2-12-2007
Lynn Quam, 2-5-2007, buffaloes, bears, and wolves
Jayne Quam, 2-5-2007, bears, coyotes, and a mountain lion
Claudia Peina, 2-5-2007, smiling bears
Kateri Quandelacy Sanchez, 2-4-2007, corn maidens
Stewart Quandelacy, 2-4-2007, Spiney Oyster, Lapis, honey onyx, jasper and turquoise medicine bears. Buffaloes and old-style eagles
Lena Boone, 2-4-2007, bears, badgers, frogs, and a fox
Gibbs Othole, 2-2-2007, Apple coral mt. lion, more to come
Dee Edaakie, 2-2-2007, bears
Jeff Tsalabutie, 2-2-2007, various carvings
Zuni fetish necklaces and pendants, 2-1-2007Sandra, Georgia, and Chad Quandelacy; Nancy Westika
Andres Quandelacy, 1-15-2007, opal pendant necklaces, variscite horse fetishes
Sandra Quandelacy, 12-22-2006, corn maidens

Books of Interest

Navajo Spaceships

Classic Hopi And Zuni Kachina Figures

MESA VERDE NATIONAL PARK: THE FIRST 100 YEARS

Fine Indian Jewelry: The Millicent Rogers Museum Collection

AEQ Book Review of Making Dictionaries: Preserving Indigenous Languages of the Americas .
Frawley, William, Kenneth C. Hill, and Pamela Munro, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. 450 pp. ISBN 0520229967, $34.95.
© 2004 American Anthropological Association Book Review of Making Dictionaries: Preserving Indigenous Languages of the Americas .
Reviewed for the Anthropology & Education Quarterly by Catherine S. Fowler
University of Nevada
csfowler@unr.nevada.edu
To Order this book

THE FOURTH WORLD
W. Tussinger has written his first novel which was released in December, 2004.
W. Tussinger is a member of the Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma and has lived on several reservations including the Yuroks of Northern California and the Yakamas of Washington State where he attended college.
To Order this book

THE WOMEN/Edward S. Curtis
by Christopher Cardozo; foreword by Louise Erdrich (Bulfinch Press, $35) — Cardozo, who lives in Minneapolis, is the world's foremost expert on, and collector of, photos of American Indians taken by turn-of-the-century photographer Edward S. Curtis. Cardozo went through 1,000 photos to find the 100 sepia-toned images in this book, which show the daily lives of American Indian women at a time when most were already on reservations. Minneapolis novelist and poet Erdrich discusses women's work in her foreword: " … although Edward Curtis believed that he was documenting a vanishing culture, it is in these humble arts that the strength of Native culture lives on."
To Order this book

Literature on Native America

An Overview of Pacific Northwest Native Indian Art
Free downloadable e-book

American Indian Women's Activism in the 1960s and 1970s
by Donna Hightower Langston
Complete article

Linguists Find the Words, and Pocahontas Speaks Again
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand, The Book
Early tribal artifacts put in spotlight at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

"Communing with Bears"
By Sara Wright
Communing with Bears is the story of a joyful encounter between one woman and a black bear.

Literacy in Indigenous Communities by L. David van Broekhuizen, Ph.D. (2000)
HTML Format (70K)
PDF Format(117K)
Literacy in first languages in indigenous communities is a complex topic that generates lively discussion. This research synthesis explores the notions of national, mother-tongue, multiple, and biliteracies. It presents important information pertaining to threatened languages, language shift, and language loss. Examples of culturally relevant uses of literacy in indigenous communities and issues related to first-language literacy instruction are also provided.

Web Sites:

Native American Links Page
Indigenous Peoples Literature
Native Voice
Wisdom of the Old People
By David Whitney

National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation
Inuit film to tell story of last great shaman
My Two Beads Worth: Indigenous News Online
Northern California Indian Development Council
Native Village
Smudge Ceremony

To subscribe to Native Village weekly email reminders, please send your email address to:
NativeVillage500@aol.com
NATIVE VILLAGE YOUTH AND EDUCATION NEWS is a free newsletter which informs and celebrates in the education, values, traditions, and accomplishments of the Americas' First Peoples.
Member: Native American Journalists Association

Buffalo Field Campaign
PO Box 957
West Yellowstone, MT 59758
(406) 646-0070
bfc-media@wildrockies.org

Home of NAMAPAHH First People's Radio
Host/Producer Robin Carneen
Thurs 7-8pm Sun 4-5pm PST
New group: (my photo album location)
http://spaces.msn.com/members/NativeRadio4all/

Amerindian Arts Native American News & Information

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Zuni Worldview, Part III, Universalism and Relativism in Language

Zuni Worldview, Part III, Universalism and Relativism in Language

Books of Interest

Literature on Native America

Web Sites:

Native American Books

Native American Music

Links

Previous Posts

Archives

About Me