The Thoughts Of Russell Vs Systemic Functional Linguistics [7]

Russell (1961: 776):

Now a belief, provided it is sufficiently simple, may exist without being expressed in words. … Suppose, for instance, in descending a staircase, you make a mistake as to when you have got to the bottom: you take a step suitable for level ground, and come down with a bump. … You would naturally say, 'I thought I was at the bottom', but in fact you were not thinking about the stairs, or you would not have made the mistake. … It was your body rather than your mind that made the mistake — at least that would be a natural way to express what happened.  But in fact the distinction between mind and body is a dubious one.  It will be better to to speak of an 'organism', leaving the division of its activities between the mind and body undetermined.  On can say, then: your organism was adjusted in a manner which would have been suitable if you had been at the bottom, but in fact it was not suitable.  This failure of adjustment constituted error, and one may say that you were entertaining a false belief.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, a belief is one type of cognitively projected idea.  In Russell's example, the belief isn't instantiated until it is projected into semiotic existence as an idea by a mental process, or as a locution by a verbal process.  Importantly, this instance is not the sort of belief that is likely to become established in the meaning potential of an individual; cf less ephemeral beliefs such as 'God exists'.

Note that Russell's term 'your organism' reinstates just the type of duality he is trying to avoid.