Ron: I don't think the distinction between the two is possible, language and Intellect sort of grew up together. This is why I think you see the Linguistic turn as fundamentally wrong somehow but can't define how. We are so accustomed to intellect that it does not seem possible That it follow the rules of language. Natural language brings with It a natural intellect. If you really think the natural perception of man is polar, you Side with Ham and Bo in this aspect. I tend to think that it is not, I think that when distinction for descriptive purposes comes into Play it does so linguistically and therefore intellectually. Language requires context. Hot means nothing without cold. High is meaningless with out low. "When all understand beauty to be beautiful ugliness appears".-dao te ching
[Krimel] My problem with deciding if the perception of duality is metaphysical or psychological is that I think all perception is subjective and therefore psychological. Language and intellect play a role in perception but no more. In fact it is often hard to see, over, under, around or through them. But "perception" is the sense of senses. It creates unity from the five senses. It spins sensation into memory and weaves a tapestry of self. Ron: I think you are leaving out that thoughts and language like emotions And physiology are symbiotic they develop together, they are not Separate Entities. Logic is thought objectified not language. [Krimel] Thought and language may be symbiotic but language is only the vehicle of thought. Thoughts arise and we seek symbols to express them. Communication renders thoughts objective. Symbols convey thoughts between thinkers. Configurations of meaning are passed like candles lit from a single match. Make no mistake emotion and common sensation can be conveyed linguistically as story and song. Hitchcock said film directors might someday makes movies by pressing buttons that stimulate the emotions directly instead of through symbols objectified in celluloid. Ron: Language, our language, creates "truth" or certainty by creating An objective logical argument to establish possession of a statement. As in a court of law, the truth or certainty of a statement such as "Tom murdered his wife" must be proven using evidence and witnesses Creating An objective logical argument tying all of it to a specific person or entity. Math is an argument, building plans are an argument. They must be proven to function before it is built. Science is based in developing formal arguments to support hypothesis. Verifiability is part of it's "proof". "Truth" is a matter of creating the most solid objective argument for a belief. [Krimel] There is a difference between legal proof and mathematical proof. Mathematical language involves unambiguous symbols. Meaning and methods are sharp and clear open to manipulate but not interpretations. Mathematical truths are analytical and rule based. Like its cousin, logic, mathematics is rational and precise. Other symbolic systems from the written word to music to art, carry varying degrees of ambiguity but more emotional depth. That depth offers clarity at the expense of precision. But this is why I argue that not all thought is linguistic or symbolic. Ron: I think because you are looking at the problem objectively In a universal format. Experience is experience the differentiation Is in the descriptive terms you use. I'm surprised Ham hasn't jumped on Your statement supporting a "self-other" dichotomy! What I find odd in your statements Krimel is your argument for Objective distinction yet you disagree with Ham and Bo about The same issues. [Krimel] I have said many times Ham and I agree that experience is subjective. I think Descartes cogito is the one certainty we are given. My own experience can not be doubted. All else is an assumption about what that means. I don't share Ham's assumptions at all. He nods at sensation and perception but does not really get it. Bo is so busy sweating the small stuff and stacking nested Russian dolls my eyes glaze over. Objectivity is nothing more than shared experience. It is inter-subjective. This is the sense in which language is objective. Communication is objectification as experience is encoded transferred and decoded. The experience encoded is nevertheless subjective and it becomes subjective again when decoded. This process of information changing form is transduction; just as our senses tranduce physical energy into nervous impulses which are synthesized into experiences which are encoded and decoded as symbols. 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/
