[Platt] How do you distinguish between a metaphorical word and literal word?
[Arlo] All words are metaphor. It is a shared understanding in a given pragmatic context that makes a word "literal". When I say "voice" (or "mind", or "spirit"), and say that as a pointer I find that particular metaphor valuable, I do this from an intuitive point, but I don't delude myself into thinking that MY valuable metaphor is RIGHT for all people and all times. Indeed, it changes for me as well. [Platt] In my view consciousness or mind occurs within entities all the way down to particles below the social level who have no "voice" per se. [Arlo] I never thought I'd hear you argue that atoms have "mind". But now I think we are treading into an area where we use these words differently. When I use "mind", or "voice", I typically understand this to be intellectual patterns of value. An "atom" does not have mind or voice because it is an inorganic pattern of value. [Platt] As for soul or spirit, I see that as an additional part of being human, as in body-mind-spirit, or the "I" in answer to the question, "Who is the I that knows me?" [Arlo] I guess I usually think of "voice", "mind" or "consciousness" as parallel to "spirit". What extends down to particles is "value". Although now that I am thinking about it, maybe I'd liken "spirit" to "social patterns of value", and "mind" to intellectual patterns of value. Hm. Body, spirit, mind. Biological, social, intellectual. 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/
