Arlo said:
While Platt is off trying to pawn such linguistic paradox off as Revelation, I
instead find them a pointing reminder of the limits of what can be said. Like
koans, they server as a "slap" to those too caught up in their expectations of
what symbolic representation offers.
dmb says:
I think that's an important point. Language has it's limits. This gets at the
distinction between the MOQ (which is made of words) and the dynamic quality it
talks about (non-verbal experience). I suppose these limits are part of the
reason Pirsig never saw much point in the logical analysis of language. These
were some smart guys but I just can't help but think the whole idea is silly.
Why in the world should we expect language to be a logically coherent system or
to be an accurate reflection of how the world "really" is? That's like
expecting your bladder to produce fine whiskey or something. I mean, it just
wasn't built for that. That's why it's so easy to produce a paradox or a joke.
It's full of holes even on the most basic levels of communication. It seems
pretty unreasonable to ask language to give us things like truth, certainty or
perfect consistency.
On the other hand, it's a pretty fabulous tool. In the right hands, it can rock
your world or change your life and I suppose if it really were logically
consistence and coherent it wouldn't have that same power. Somehow it's the
ambiguities and nuances that really make it sing. Yea, that's it. It's too
soulful to be technically correct, too musical to be a form of logic.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/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/
