Seems I'm a bit obsessed by the forest thinking book. Here's more from good old Eduardo:
'We are colonised by certain ways of thinking about relationality. We can only imagine certain ways in which selves and thoughts might form associations through our assumptions about the forms of associations that structure human language. And then, in ways that often go unnoticed, we project these assumptions onto non humans. Without realising it, we attribute to non humans properties that are our own and then, to compound this, we narcissistically ask them to provide us with corrective reflections of ourselves.'
Symbolic thought is just one kind of thought - using language or abstract signs. But it is not the only way of communicating meaning. All living things find meaning in the world and communicate meaning to the world. A dog's hackles rising are a sign. An acacia tree emitting chemicals when it is being eaten by bugs that lead to other acacia's making their leaves toxic.
Kohn was influenced by the philosopher Charles Pierce who said:
I define a sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its interpretant, that the later is thereby mediately determined by the former. (EP2, 478)
I think what this means is that the sign is created by a being and that what it does - making another dog growl or cringe - is the interpretant. By thinking this way, you don't rely on language or minds, even.
This allows meaning to be exchanged between all living things - not just language users or thinking ones.
Now, why this thrills me is that it puts all life into a potential relationship. All life.
Comments