[Ian] Well I got that Krim, that that was what you were meaning, I was just suggesting it was a lingusitic problem still.
OK, so you have this species of "justification" which is a "reasonable kind of reason". [Krimel] I am not talking about linguistic problems in particular here but it it does apply. The linguist problem occurs when you say that all thought is linguistic. I say it is not. In fact I would say while most thoughts can be expressed linguistically they do not originate linguistically. They arise nonlinguistically and are encoded into language. [Ian] But (as Dave B pointed out just a moment ago in his Descarte / French culture quip), what you consider "reasonable" may be some kind of idea of being "intellectally valid", whatever .... but that itself is culturally conditioned. [Krimel] Some of the "value" that we attach to experience is culturally determined but not all. Some is inherent in our nature but not all. I learned to like ice cream at an early age but I strongly suspect the children from another culture would learn to like it without much cultural exposure. [Ian] I prefer to think of reason as a verb. ie to rationalize. The mental process of justifying (saying why something is more valuable than something else) - which is full of psychological mind-games and intentions, as well as rhetoric and logic to create the appearance of "rational" to oneself, and to others. [Krimel] I think the "games" are not so much psychological as linguistic. The problem is that we think that "rationality" is in the driver's seat when it is really just the tail wagging the dog. 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/
