David M, Matt said:[something about cultural evolution] David said: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. Matt:This is funny. I read this and went, "Of
course our stories have to account for non-linguistic aspects of experience!
Who's saying otherwise?" And then I read: David said: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 need a tug back to
those aspects of life that are more than linguistic. Matt:I still don't see why
it is misleading, but I suppose I'll respect your feeling that it is. My
position of defense against your feeling is still: nothing in Rorty's account
(or my cooptation) leaves it out. I would certainly not object to your
addendum. My reaction is, "Well, yes, of course, that's going to be a lot of
the story. A huge part of the story of culture is going to be how bouncing off
of physical things produced such-and-such innovation, e.g., the story Jared
Diamond tells." I don't view Rorty as correcting himself, more like adding on
the obvious addendum depending on what he's exactly talking about. For
instance, much of the time Rorty's telling such an atmospheric story about the
history of philosophy (which is kinda' like a story about the history of
stories about culture), that I think Rorty _can_ neglect the
material/physical/non-linguistic aspects of this story. For instance, does
Rorty always have to talk about how the invention of paper or the invention of
the printing press affected philosophy? Certainly the transition between an
oral culture to a written culture is one that needs to be told a little more
often (and explains a good deal about Greek attitudes towards poetry and makes
Plato's position even more complicated), but I think there are many reasonable
ways to tell these stories, stories that overlap, and we don't need to tell
_every_ single one when we are telling _a_ single one. In other words, I'm not
stopping Diamond from telling the story he told in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I'm
just telling a different story, one I'm not convinced the terms of which need
to be modified. Because if addenda are all that needs adding, then the terms
certainly haven't shifted. What I've always shied away from is your insistence
on using the conversation metaphor when talking about science. I still don't
see why it is required. Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by
today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
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/
