I agree with that Matt "we need a new and better language" I think that is inescapable - a part of evolution needed for rational discourse to evolve to any new value. Ian
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Matt Kundert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey, > > I don't pay attention much anymore, but I saw this: > > Ron said: > Why Essentialism seems so difficult to break from resides in the grammar of > our language, the logical predication and ordering of concepts as laid out > per Aristotle based on those assumptions. But as Dmb says that is broken once > essentialism is rejected and natural language remains. > > Matt: > I would warn away from the idea of a "natural language." You don't need it > for any of the things that you (or DMB, for that matter) are trying to say. > I don't think it can really pan out (much the same way any other assertion of > a "real" X over an infectious/appearance Y--all just part of Plato's > essentialism). Better to stick to the idea that we need a new and better > language, not to get back to how language really would be naturally (how > would you know it if you saw it?). > > Matt > _________________________________________________________________ > Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/ > 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/
