Well put Orn. On 20 Feb, 16:08, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “Why do you feel the need to draw this particular distinctive line > between individuals of the human race at this point, orn?” – gabby > > A good question gabbers. First, my words: > > “This is where those who rely upon thought using words and concepts > alone fail. Other ways of knowing are needed…always have been, always > will be. “ > > were in response to Pat’s comment: > > “Not until we all speak the same language again. ;-) If we ever > do!??!” > > So, in this sense, it was meant as a unifying expansion and > clarification associated with his reply to Archy’s comments on > language. > > This was more of the ‘what’ than the ‘why’ that you asked gabby. The > ‘why’ is mostly a simple discriminative (in the sense of being capable > of making fine distinctions) comment on the topic…perhaps not too > dissimilar to your ability to notice blue and brown eyes. > > As to a ‘need’, I’m not so sure there was one other than what I’ve > expressed above. Further, what may be perceived as a “particular > distinctive line between individuals of the human race” to me is no > more a separation between us than someone learning how to do > gymnastics or learning many different languages is a separation…there > is a natural hierarchy when it comes to abilities. This in no way > precludes the possibility of change for any of us. I could begin the > study of a new language at my advanced age even though it would be > quite difficult. Others here could take up any area of study and > become ‘different’, at least for our ability to discriminate in such > cases. This is true when it comes to the areas of philosophy, science, > metaphysics as well as metacognition too. Perhaps synesthesia is of a > different rank of abilities. > > Lastly, I would guess that my motivation was to remind people that > living in a world of words and concepts, as perhaps interesting as it > may be, can blind one to other aspects of being human. So, in this > way, it was a friendly poke to help awaken us all to that which is not > conceptual…so that there will be no line between individuals. > > On Feb 20, 6:56 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Why do you feel the need to draw this particular distinctive line > > between individuals of the human race at this point, orn? > > > On 19 Feb., 16:54, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is where those who rely upon thought using words and concepts > > > alone fail. Other ways of knowing are needed…always have been, always > > > will be. > > > > On Feb 19, 2:44 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It seems the periodic table extends far beyond 118 and the boffins > > > > think there may be stable elements at very high number. I sometimes > > > > think language might be a bit like this in that we struggle to fit > > > > other than a few elemental strings of it together and need to keep it > > > > stable longer in critical mode through understanding variable > > > > influences like temperature and pressure (metaphors). Experiments are > > > > now showing that information is transferred by mothers to offspring > > > > even when they don't do maternal nurture stuff (crickets are > > > > programmed to be very scared of wolf-spiders by mothers that have > > > > lived with the threat and not by those that haven't). > > > > Language does invent and get divorced from biology-reality, which pits > > > > Sophism against truth, though inventive language also helps us better > > > > understand and articulate reality, so this particular dichotomy is not > > > > the end of the story. > > > > > On 18 Feb, 15:53, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >http://corrosion-doctors.org/Periodic/Periodic-1.htm > > > > > > On Feb 18, 3:12 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 17 February 2010 15:24, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > What did she drop then Ian? > > > > > > > Nothing at all, she runs around saying it over and over. We were > > > > > > wondering > > > > > > is it was "stop it", but the jury is out on that I'm afraid. > > > > > > > In all honesty, I am onside with the biological basis for language. > > > > > > Less so > > > > > > on the periodic table analogy. Grammar is quite mutable. For > > > > > > example: I use > > > > > > unprecursed pronouns in my writing quite often when opening a > > > > > > scene, it can > > > > > > create a nice lead-in. > > > > > > > Chemicals on the periodic table are, by comparison, not mutable. > > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
-- 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.
