[WillBlake]
I agree that language shapes our thoughts. More importantly, language
restricts our thoughts, but is essential for communication.
[Arlo]
Both Bourdieu (habitus) and Archer/Giddens/etc (structuration) talk
about the mutually enabling/restricting aspects of "language".
[WillBlake]
A good example of this is the difference in thinking between the
Chinese and Americans, symbols v words.
[Arlo]
George Lakoff (and others) have written about inter-cultural
structure variance in language that leads to whole-scale differences
in thinking and acting. Another form this takes is in the underlying
"metaphors" of our language (or, I prefer, "languaculture" (Agar)).
Example, in English "arguing" follows a "war" metaphor. We win
arguments, the other person loses. "I was winning that argument until
she brought out the big guns". It is confrontational. In Spanish,
"arguing" follows a "dance" metaphor. You don't win, you "lead". It
is not confrontation as much as it is orchestration. In Russian, the
concept of "privacy" implies sneakiness, underhandedness, shady
dealings, deception and manipulation. In English, of course,
"privacy" has a very different metaphorical web.
[WillBlake]
I would disagree that mental patterns originate out of society, I am
still trying to figure out what Pirsig means by his hierarchy, I do
not see the world that way, yet.
[Arlo]
I think this is one of the more salient aspects of the MoQ, and I am
glad he held his guns here to keep the MoQ both internally consistent
and inline with our broadening understanding of language. I think one
of they key tie-ins here is with the socio-cultural tradition
(Vygotsky, Leon'tev, Bakhtin, e.g.). Although not explicitly
"Pirsigian", the book "The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition" by
Tomasello presents (in my opinion) the single best exposition of the
historical transition between "biological patterns" and "social patterns".
Briefly, we can NOT think without language. It simply does not
happen. Some form of symbolic representation of our experience is
required for us to manipulate thoughts, and without social immersion
(the recognition and interaction with other intentional beings), we
do not develop language. We are so immersed in this milieu we
scarcely can imagine or envision a life without it. The best we can
do is look at records of feral humans, take personal histories such
as those penned by Helen Keller who only as adults came to be
"socialized" beings, and study primates and pre-social
anthropological data (you have to go pretty far back). I think the
evidence shows that before a human being acquires some rudimentary
symbols, s/he is trapped in a world of purely biological responses to
the ongoing flow of experience.
Pirsig says more on this. "Our scientific description of nature is
always culturally derived. Nature tells us only what our culture
predisposes us to hear. The selection of which inorganic patterns to
observe and which to ignore is made on the basis of social patterns
of value, or when it is not, on the basis of biological patterns of
value. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" was a historically
shattering declaration of independence of the intellectual level of
evolution from the social level of evolution, but would he have said
it if he had been a seventeenth century Chinese philosopher? If he
had been, would anyone in seventeenth century China have listened to
him and called him a brilliant thinker and recorded his name in
history? If Descartes had said, "The seventeenth century French
culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I am," he would have
been correct." (LILA)
Let me ask you this, if mental patterns do not originate out of
society, from where do they? Does the brain, independent of any
social participation, generate mental patterns on its own? Where do
the symbols come from? Are the innate? Genetic? Would all
pre-language humans, whether they or Chinese or English, think more
with pretty much identical mental patterns?
Anyways, this is off the topic of PC, and has been discussed here
several times in the past year or so (at least).
[WillBlake]
We do not think through language, but translate our thoughts into language.
[Arlo]
I'd say we translate our experiences into language. Or rather, we
encode them symbolically, which allows us to remove ourselves from
the immediate moment and see "past" and "future". There is no
"thinking" pre-language (what would you think with?), only a
perception of Quality unlabeled or described. As we assimilate a
language (a symbolic repertoire for encoding experience), we are only
then able to "think" as we translate those moments of experience into
abstract "ideas" or "concepts".
[WillBlake]
I do disagree that we should alleviate the "burden to society" by
directly connecting one's eating habits and the overall well-being of
a society.
[Arlo]
Well, my point is that society already does carry this burden though
the high-cost of emergency room procedures and the like, and also
disability. Pay a little now, or pay a lot later, seems to be the
choices we have. I think the government, which oversees this burden,
is moral in its involvement.
I suppose, you could argue that society should not carry any burden
whatsoever, which would be possible only if emergency rooms denied
outright any treatment to anyone unable to pay upfront. If an obese
man was rushed in suffering from a heart attack, and had no medical
insurance or ability to pay, he would be wheeled out onto the curb.
Even hospitals that perform "free" services defray these costs by
raising the expense to paying consumers. "Free" drugs by
pharmaceuticals mean higher costing pills to those who pay. That is
the capitalist model. That is what Rush says every time he says that
taxing businesses only increase the cost to the consumer. Businesses,
which our hospital/pharmaceuticals are most definitely, would never
lose profit to just give things away, they simply defer the costs to
another consumer group.
[WillBlake]
While I believe in a responsible society, this should come from within.
[Arlo]
I don't disagree with you, but as I said there already is a burden we
share, socially, for the cost of poor health. Unless you are
proposing some sort of system that denies any socially-underwritten
expense to those in need of medical treatment, you can't really avoid
this, all you can do is work to minimize it.
[WillBlake]
It is easier to blame the company, than the victimized individual.
[Arlo]
Well, this is part of a larger game of demonizing by both sides.
Everyone has a bugbear they go after. I'm not talking about blaming a
company, though, not at all. Indeed, I have no problem with
"unhealthy" foods at all, I think in moderation few will do you much
harm. A few cans of soda here and there won't leave you with diabetes
or obesity. I am talking overall health habits related to diet and
exercise, not singling out this or that food item. And as such,
again, I think its within the governments role to disseminate this
information, and support infrastructural development that encourages
this (bike paths, as I said, for example). I do not think its within
the governments role to punish people for certain choices that may
not reflect unhealthy habits.
[WillBlake]
While I'm sure there could be extreme examples brought up as to where
curtailing one's rights is good (legalizing cocaine, for example) the
common sense of dictating what people should do for the greater good
should be examined.
[Arlo]
Much as you seem to think I like to argue absolution through
hyperbole, my points all along has been that we need to be able to
sit down and look at specific things and make determinations about
them being good or bad in and off themselves; cocaine regulations can
not justify soda regulations, but then being against the ban on soda
can't be used to imply the immorality of building bike paths.
[WillBlake]
When you speak of the "single biggest single health item affecting
our diet", you are lumping everybody together, those that drink soda
responsibly and those that don't.
[Arlo]
Well, I was speaking in terms of the American diet as a whole, like
saying car accidents is a leading cause of death doesn't imply any
real connection to individuals who may drive responsibly, but it is
nonetheless true. With soda, I believe, the problem is in the sheer
quantities many drink it. I know more than a dozen people in my
immediate daily experience who consume upwards of eight cans of soda
a day. While there are more unhealthy foods out there, there are none
we as a country consume nearly as much as we consume soda. Do I think
soda is evil or bad or anything like that? Not at all. I am a birch
beer fanatic, and on long hot motorcycle trips I have the habit of
treating myself to a grape soda while I sit in the shade and rest.
This gets back to what I think is the contextual question here. Why
are so many Americans habituated to unhealthy eating? Does this cross
over into Marsha's concerns about "neuromarketing"? Add also, or
Pirsig's view from ZMM? "Along the streets that lead away from the
apartment he can never see anything through the concrete and brick
and neon but he knows that buried within it are grotesque, twisted
souls forever trying the manners that will convince themselves they
possess Quality, learning strange poses of style and glamour vended
by dream magazines and other mass media, and paid for by the vendors
of substance." (ZMM)
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/
