HOW TO TALK TO YOURSELF OR KRIPKE's WITTGENSTEIN's SOLITARY LANGUAGE ARGUMENT AND WHY IT FAILS

Abstract: In Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, Kripke's Wittgenstein argues that it is possible for individuals in communities to speak a language and otherwise follow rules, but impossible for a single, conceptually isolated individual to do so. I show that the roots of the argument lie in his general account of the legitimacy of practices, and that he actually argues for two distinct conclusions: (a) solitary individuals cannot have useful practices of rule‐following and (b) solitary individuals cannot place substantive restrictions on their own behavior. I show that if it is, in fact, possible for individuals in communities to use language and follow rules, then both of Kripke's Wittgenstein's anti‐solitary language arguments fails; and, furthermore, that his general account not only fails to exclude the possibility of solitary language‐use and rule‐following, it actually guarantees their possibility.     

Adolescent sexuality in a therapeutic community: staff countertransference issues

Issues connected with sexuality such as heterosexual relationships, homosexuality, sexual identity, and seductiveness, create conflict and countertransference dilemmas for staff who work with psychiatric patients in a therapeutic community. When the therapeutic community is composed of adolescents, these issues are exacerbated since sexual identity and sexual development are major concerns. The staff reacts strongly to the issue of self-determination and violation/infringement on a basic human need. These philosophical differences have their roots in countertransference feelings. Staff sometimes find it difficult to confront adolescents on emotionally charged issues that have a sexual coloring. A system is proposed for articulating and working through these feelings. A unique solution is posited for solving this conflictual attitude (based on object relations theory), whereby the residential treatment center serves as the analog of the home in order to allow adolescents to develop a sense of self before they can move on to the halfway house where heterosexual behavior is allowed (as part of the therapeutic process). This facilitates the meeting of the "self" with the "other." This procedure is explored in light of Sullivan's concept of intimacy.     

Two issues concerning tonal hierarchies: comment on Castellano, Bharucha, and Krumhansl

First, because tonal hierarchies exist in the music of long-established traditions, we may assume that they confer certain processing advantages. Such hierarchies capitalize on certain properties of the pitch memory system that do not require a tonal setting for demonstration. Furthermore, they facilitate the generation of hierarchical representations of sequential patterns of pitches, and such representations enable considerable parsimony of encoding. Second, the listener's establishment of a tonal hierarchy involves a process of key attribution. This process draws not only on the identities of the notes presented but also draws on their orderings. Certain sequential grouping factors are involved here that can also be shown to exist outside a tonal setting. We are therefore dealing with an elaborate bootstrapping operation, through which both a key and a sequential representation are arrived at by the listener.     

The effects of area and perimeter on detection rates

The detection of luminance increments in a homogeneously lighted field was studied as a function of the area and perimeter of the luminance increment. Sixteen targets representing all possible combinations of four values of area and four values of perimeter were foveally presented. Exposure durations were short (25 to 40 msec). Results of both an analysis of variance and linear discriminant analysis indicated that detection probability increases as area increases, but neither variations in perimeter nor perimeter-area combinations produced effects that were significant oyer the experiment as a whole. The linear discriminant analysis revealed individual differences in the effects of perimeter and area on detection probability. Results were contradictory to Kristofferson’s (1957) “element contribution theory” and gave only slight support to Hecht’s (Lamar, Hecht, Shlaer, & Hendley, 1947) “border-quantum theory.”