You mean: let's have as clear definition
of our abstract concepts as possible before
we debate them? ..ok...
Eva
> Dear Richard:
>
> What a challenge! Though I don't have an answer, it is the direction that
> is interesting. I agree we have built up a whole rational of logic based on
> certain key concepts such as money, value, work, employment, income, savings
> and a whole legal body of law and accounting practices to contain and make
> valid these words.
>
> To start some new thinking off, I would like to introduce a new concept.
> Out of the linguistic studies of Noam Chomsky and NLP came the idea of a
> class of words called "nominalizations". A nominalization (I don't have the
> time to look up the official description right now) is a word used as a
> noun, but it is not a noun. A noun is classically described a person, place
> or thing and the test we use to decide whether a word is being used as a
> nominalization is to ask the simple question, "Can you put it in a
> wheelbarrow." All other words used as nouns are verb forms that are being
> used as nouns and from this "distortion" false logic begins and builds into
> a major monster.
>
> Well, I decided to get out the old books, so I will transcribe a small
> portion.
>
> Practical Magic
> by Leslie Cameron Bandler
> Page 51
>
> 4. Nominalizations, (words like "pride", "respect", "love", "confidence",
> "harmony", are introduced as nouns in the sentence but they represent
> activity and process in the person's deeper understanding and not static
> nouns.)
>
> Statement:
>
> "There is no respect here." (Note respect would be parsed as a noun)
>
> Challenge Question
>
> Who is not respecting whom? (Note the conversion of the nominalization back
> into a verb form. This stops respect from being a thing and converts it to
> it's rightful use as a process.) As long as "respect" is a thing then you
> end up with the logic of who has this thing or who doesn't have this thing.
> We spend much of our life arguing and defending processes masquerading as
> things when a properly framed question would remove this "distortion" and
> allow a more accurate perception of reality.
>
> Let's now take this to the topic's you have brought forth. Work is
> traditionally used as a nominalization - a thing.
>
> Everyone must work. (Accepted meaning is everyone must have this thing
> called work in their life.)
>
> Who is not working? ( Moves the nominalization back into a process and
> requires a different dialog from the first statement.)
>
> I think you are right, that we have been hijacked by language and certain
> improper usages have become so commonplace that we cannot readily recognize
> the distortions they introduce into our thinking processes. It is like
> going back on a statement even further than questioning the assumptions, it
> is the question of the form of the statement by having a formula that will
> reveal that the form is improper, therefore whatever answer comes forth is
> also flawed.
>
> There is much more than this simple example to explore and if there is
> interest, I can suggest books and we can engage in a List dialog on how to
> remove some of the deletions, distortions and generalizations that occur in
> converting reality into language. The map is not the territory and the map
> can never contain the territory, however the trick is to create a map that
> accurately reflects the territory of reality by eliminating or reducing
> deletions, distortions and generalizations by having questions that allow
> for a fuller explanation of the reality that we are attempting to reflect
> with language.
>
> Respectfully
>
> Thomas Lunde
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
