-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Krimel Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MD] WHY MoQ IS PARALYzED
[Ham] In any case, I find Ron's assertion that "our intellectual thoughts are dictated by grammar" to be an extreme position that defies common sense and is unsupported by empirical evidence. [Ron] Well Ham you are not alone. But I thank you for your honest response. I think humans are able to think and have thoughts but humans who Use language think in different ways, I think when we intellectualize We are haggling over how terms are understood. We build conceptions Upon these understandings. Empirically I haven't a leg to stand on this issue because anything I say from here is meaningless. I realize this. [Arlo] Give me an example of an intellectual thought that is not dictated by grammar? Hell, give me an "intellectual thought" that does not use "words"! I'd say the reverse is true, what "defies common sense" is the idea that our "intellectual thoughts" are not constrained by the language in which we think! Of course, we also realize that this is not a bad thing, since "language" bestows upon us the ability to have "intellectual thoughts" at all! [Krimel] Yeah, I thought Ron was too willing to bail out early on this one. But oddly enough I tend to side with Ham on this. How could anyone possibly give you an example of a thought not dictated by grammar or words? How would the thought be conveyed? The best example I can think of is in the split brained patient attempting to put together a puzzle. It is easily done with one hand but when the other hand tries, it fumbles around and the first hand keeps trying to reach in and help. Language facilitates thought. It makes certain kinds of thought possible that might not be otherwise. But it seems to me that language reveals the structure of thought more than it dictates the structure of thought. Or a least this is a two way interaction. Also if you restrict thought to intellectual thought what does that mean? Aren't you in effect saying that intellectual thought is verbal thought so thought must be verbal? Ron: I just don't have the time or strength to argue a point that no one Is willing to entertain. The rules for language are the rules we Unconsciously use for intellection, verbal written or what. Consequently the intellectual paradoxes we face are derived from them. They only exist intellectually. More and more it becomes clearer. The east is not impressed with the MoQ because chiefly they make No abstract/concrete distinction in their nouns, I think it is largely Active/passive something like Pirsig was modeling in SQ/DQ. If everyone is content to swish the same tea, there is nothing I can really do to change that. I think Arlo has an understanding of my point of view. Its difficult for me To butt heads with everyone else only for them to back to their tea. I know it reduces all the majesty Of metaphysics and philosophy to grammatical conflicts of conceptual meaning but that's what it is. and I expect few to take heed of this simply for the fact that they will loose the taste for the tea they swish with relish. Krimel: Language facilitates thought. It makes certain kinds of thought possible that might not be otherwise. But it seems to me that language reveals the structure of thought more than it dictates the structure of thought. Or a least this is a two way interaction. Ron: A two way interaction is what it is, when we intellectualize, especially About metaphysics, things like subject/object treatment of nouns become Exaggerated. We take them for what they represent. A chair is not subjective Or objective, it is a term for an understanding of an experience. But once We conceptualize via grammatical noun class of the term "chair" it becomes Understood as a concrete static object. Even if the term is still Mostly abstract past the concept that it is something objective used To sit on. Yet we still have an understanding and a conceptual visualization Of some specific type of chair when the term is used, connected to experience. It cements the notion even more now that a chair is a Specific object relational in space even though the term "chair" lacks any sort of concrete description. This is how subtle it is. We are convinced Of objective existence from the first word. Then the sentence structure dictates how that noun is used, now we find That "chair" was meant in the abstract form of a social position held. Now chair is abstract. But we would never know this but by how the sentence Structure treats the term. Thus giving it it's abstract meaning. I'll continue if there is interest but if you are convinced I'm spewing Nonsense then I'll save it. 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/
