Perhaps strangely for a biologist, my notion of biology in language starts with Orwell. I take a very strong position on reconnecting language to actual felt experience, thought and what we can have of simple, objective truth as essential to a sane and decent society. I don't think this is possible in intellectual or current political mode - it's currently beyond party hacks and bureaucratic place-people. We need contact with physical reality and what people are feeling, metaphors of lived lives. This is neither the one word, one thing that excludes everything else, nor the word surrounded by the spectral aura of deconstructive presence. Language cannot be all suppressing possibilities, nor an all so vapidly open to possibilities there is never a best or better course. Bogus truth or endless equivocation ain't it. I want something rougher and readier, without rough-riding appeals to emotional manipulation that is essentially biological, taking place in a biology we do not understand a developing biology can help us see through and have control of without being led by the nose.
On 18 Feb, 00:13, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think my theory goes down the tube just 'cos Ian's no doubt > lovely young lady is talking in Morse Code. I suspect the definition > of biology is what is not understood. There is no going back Francis, > not after the incident with the transgendered penguin! Biology has a > habit of developing things. > > On 17 Feb, 21:32, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Oh well, back to the catwalk, I suppose ... :-) > > > Francis > > > On 17 Feb., 18:22, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 17 Feb, 16:15, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 17 Feb., 14:49, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 16 Feb, 18:55, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps it is artificial. I certainly had nothing to do with > > > > > constructing either language or matter. So, I can only surmise these > > > > > to be natural. Whether they are analogous, well, if so, then that > > > > > would, too, be natural; if they (language and matter) are, in fact, > > > > > artificial, then any semblence between them would be as artificial as > > > > > the things themselves. > > > > > Ah, but Pat, this is where you miss my point. I wasn't talking about > > > > language or matter, rather the categories we use to analyse them; to > > > > wit, our conventional grammatic categorisations, or even the periodic > > > > table of elements. These are models, and - as I'm sure you will agree > > > > (even while embarked on your search for the Universal Theory of > > > > Everything) - we can use many different models to achieve insights > > > > into that which we perceive. It is, however, always risky to push > > > > models too far - above all, to forget that models are just that, > > > > models. > > > > True. But that never stopped Kate Moss. ;-) > > > > > Francis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
