After I had sent my previous note, in which I made a three-way
distinction, I checked Google for more references and found an
interesting article by John Deely, who made a finer distinction
between Umwelt and Lebenswelt: (01)
http://web.archive.org/web/20060221134707/http://www.ut.ee/SOSE/deely.htm (02)
Following is the excerpt that states Deely's distinction: (03)
the human Umwelt is so modified from within by the exaptation
of language to communicate that, without ceasing to be an Umwelt,
it becomes yet so different from an Umwelt based on an Innenwelt
without language that some further term to characterize it becomes
imperative. I have proposed that the term Lebenswelt should be
adopted to express an Umwelt which is species-specifically human,
retaining Umwelt to express the generic idea of an objective world
which is in every case species-specific consequent upon biological
constitution. (04)
Using Deely's definition, I would split point #2 of my previous
three-way distinction to points #2 and #3 below: (05)
1. The world as it actually is -- i.e., a reality that is
independent of any individual of any species. (06)
2. The language-independent, but species-specific Umwelt, which
is objective with respect to the "biological constitution"
of a particular species. (07)
3. The language-dependent Lebenswelt of humans, which can be
objective with respect to a community of speakers of a
particular language. (08)
4. The world as modeled by any individual (the Innenwelt). (09)
John Sowa (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|