Hi Matt I think that is fine, but I'd want to add that when we do tell our stories we also have to account for non-linguistic aspects of our experience, and these aspects include how we understand our bodies and our behaviour that have a history both before and after language was acquired.
I see no reason why you should object to this, but think it misleading to constantly write as if it does not need including, which I think you and Rorty tend to do. Yes, Rorty does correct himself on occassions but for me the emphasis needs a tug back to those aspects of life that are more than linguistic. And if you don't agree let's sort this out outside with the old six shooters, now there's a non-linguistic way to end a protracted argument don't you think? Thanks David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Heather Perella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:05 AM Subject: Re: [MD] subject/object: pragmatism >> Matt: >> That's why I don't go for the distinction between >> intelligence and >> intellect as what divides Pirsig's levels. >> Intelligence is obviously >> the biologically linked thing that we share with the >> animals, but I >> think that's all there is. "Intellect" is a >> reification of a set of >> cultural innovations that humans were able to create >> in part through >> their creation of language. Language was just a >> tool we created to >> help us survive. So were all the other innovations >> that language made >> possible. Some of these innovations took on a life >> of their own, but >> how do we tell an evolutionary story about the >> creation of "intellect" >> if it isn't a set of cultural innovations? We >> haven't been able to do >> it for "mind" or "representations" yet, and that's >> partly why >> philosophers of a pragmatist stripe have been >> working so hard to retire >> them. > > > My point exactly. This is why I keep saying we > could try to define intellect and any other level all > day and night and we wouldn't be able to. If we > completely thought we did, then we would be stuck. > These levels are defining something more dynamic, > creative, free, and open than we may think at this > moment. This is how improvising works so well on the > day to day events. We may try to organize and > structure our lives into Confucian habits, but > nature's wind will blow and the inspiration will flow. > > night stars, > SA > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. > Make Yahoo! your homepage. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
