Hi Brian,
As you probably know, I 'use' FW list in a selfish way, as a useful medium
in which I can think about, and hopefully clarify my views of human
activities without wishing to persuade anyone.You now seem to be taking me
into the realms of linguistics which, although fascinating, is something
I'm hesitant about. So the delete key may be more active than usual!
(KH)
<<<<
My take is that life is more important than homo sapiens, but as we're the
most advanced specimen of life so far on earth, then we should look after
our own long-term survival as best we can, even if it means colonising
other places at some future time to escape a super-volcano which might
destroy most species as well as ourselves.
>>>>
(BMcA)
<<<<
Literally, without language there is no world. I am not trying to be
clever; I'm using language to describe how I understand what language is
and what it does. The paradoxical nature of this task is obvious.
Wittgenstein said "the limits of our language means the limits of our
world". Think of your awareness of the world at age six months, two years
old, twenty years old, fifty years old, ninety years old... Human
consciousness brought language into being thus it brought the big bang into
being (for some of us).
>>>>
Yes, I go along with this. I talk about the Big Bang as a matter of
convenience because that's the language of present-day physics. But I don't
suppose that it's anything more than being part of the current myth (which,
however, is a very inclusive and extensive myth). I doubt whether
physicists and cosmologists will be talking in terms of Big Bangs in, say,
10 or 20 years' time. There'll be another myth, another language, another
picture.
(BMcA)
<<<<
As I mentioned in an earlier email, the big bang theory is only one of
several 'origin of the universe' theories currently espoused by leading
scientists. And what about other cultures whose understandings of things
are utterly other than western science's understanding? For example the
Dakota:
To the Reader
Admit, assume, because, believe, could, doubt, end, expect, faith, forget,
forgive, guilt, how, it, mercy, pest, promise, should, sorry, storm, them,
us, waste, weed- Neither these words nor the conceptions for which they
stand appear in this book; they are the whiteman's import to the New World,
the newcomers contribution to the vocabulary of the man he called Indian.
Truly the parent Indian families possessed neither these terms nor their
equivalents". Ruth Beebe Hill, Hanta Yo, Warner Books, 1979 --
>>>>
There's nothing wrong with the Dakota universe if it appeals to you. I like
the largest possible myth, and that seems to me to be the myth of
present-day physics. But it's no better than the Dakota's. I just find that
of physics more useful -- that's all.
(BMcA)
<<<<
Imagine not possessing (being possessed by?!) the concepts: believe, doubt,
faith, because. I marvel at their certainty which I'm told came from their
close association with the spirit world. Their ways of knowing stemmed from
vision quest, dreams, 'listening to' and learning from all of what we call
nature.
>>>>
Since joining FW list with its Canadian origins I can't fail to be aware of
the deep interest you (and Ed and several more) have in First Nation
matters (and that of Ray, concerning the American Indians, of course) and
their religion/philosophy. I'm aware, too, of the initial attempts of the
English to impose their traditional aristocracy upon the indigenous peoples
-- and, indeed, on the whole social scene. So it's understandable that many
FWers such as yourself feel badly about what has become of them.
(BMcA)
<<<<
p.s. language has become profoundly mysterious to me and these words don't
in any way capture that mystery. How does the fly get out of the fly
bottle? Are fish aware of water? How come some people can be so certain
that scepticism is at the heart of western science?
>>>>
Yes, well most scientists think that they're sceptics. They are, to the
extent that they get into the habit of questioning -- or seem to, anyway
(in fact, they're just as reactionary as anybody else when it comes to the
big theories). But they're not essentially sceptical. At bottom they rest
on faith and are thus no different from any believer. Their faith lies in
assuming that the universe is a consistent whole and that its understanding
is amenable to the type of logic that we're able to use. But, as you know,
whether one talks in terms of linguistic logic or of mathematical logic our
'understanding' can be shown to be both true and flawed -- thanks to
Wittgenstein and Godel respectively.
So we're left with a mystery again! I agree with you.
Keith
__________________________________________________________
�Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in
order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow
_________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________
