On May 11, 2011, at 2:49 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > Marsha asked Arlo: > Have you lost sight of our language being all about the a subject and a verb > acting on a direct or indirect object? > > dmb says: > You're conflating grammar with metaphysics. Using the english language does > not entail a commitment to SOM, as we plainly see in Pirsig's philosophical > novels. In fact, he uses the english language to dispute and replace SOM.
Marsha: I am not conflating anything. Language reflects the way we think and our reality. > Marsha asked Arlo: > How do you know that the structure of our language has greatly enriched human > agency? Did you use active imagination? Projection? Because you thunk it? > > dmb says: > Language gives you the power to ask that question, although you've used that > power quite badly. Your question demonstrates the very thing you mock. It's > like doubting your capacity to doubt. It's more than a little bit > hair-brained. Marsha: There you go again, dmb, sputter, sputter, sputter... > Marsha said to Arlo: > I have not spoken of becoming brain dead, just not elevating language when it > is much of the problem. > > Arlo replied: > I am not "elevating" it either, as I said it is not about glorifying or > condemn language (or any "structure"), but to see that you can't have the > expanded potential structure brings without constraints. These are not > opposed forces, language enriches and constrains, and the durability of > language historically demonstrates quite clearly that the value it brings > outweighs the constraints it places upon u > > dmb says: > Right. Marsha is making a wildly invalid inference, taking a giant leap. She > takes the MOQ's claims about the limits of language to be a condemnation of > language as such. Its structure is not an evolved capacity, but a prison. > It's not just that it is unable to say anything about the ultimate truth, > whatever THAT is. No, it hides the truth, she says, and by this she must mean > that ultimate truth. "We can think and characterize reality only subject to > language, which is conventional," she says, "Language occludes the way things > really are." I think this is quite confused and the conclusions are rather > drastic. Marsha: I have not !condemned! language. In fact, I fully admitted to being a conventional woman. You're projecting so you can pontificate. Hahaha. You're so funny. > dmb continues... > Guys like Pirsig and James are not condemning language because it gets in the > way of realizing the ultimate truth. They're saying there is no ultimate > truth. They're saying truth is a species of the good, an intellectual good. > To say this pragmatic truth is conventional and not ultimate is true enough > but how does that make it any less good? Is there an unstated premise here, > an assumption that conventional reality is to be hated, dismissed or > otherwise condemned? Is there some other reality we're supposed to like > better? Smells like the same old, same old, same old otherworldly Platonism > to me. Marsha: If language is structured in a subject-object fashion, it represents misconception. But it is correct that there is no ultimate truth. ___ 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/md/archives.html
