MF September topic Hi people,
This is a summary of the argument that I have been intending to make for a while on the topic of language and the social level. It is my belief that language, properly understood, is the equivalent at the social level of DNA at the biological level. When I return from my holiday I shall try and give more substance to my argument - I'm afraid that for now you have to rely on what is in my long term memory, which will have the virtue of brevity if nothing else. A few things to support that. 1. I have written before about Wittgenstein's view of language, principally that language has a 'depth grammar' which relates the words spoken/written to their context within a form of life (lebensformen). Wittgenstein's view of language specifically breaks down the positivist view (descending from Descartes) that sees language as composed of distinct units of sense (ie 'clear and distinct ideas') which map clearly on to 'reality'. In contrast to this view - very much part of SOM of course - Wittgenstein's conception is much 'thicker'; he is the one who rejects 'flatland' most profoundly. My earlier posts (from 2001/2002) go into this in more detail. 2. Two things specifically from Wittgenstein's analysis which are relevant: i) the private language argument. A key part of the early argument in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is the debunking of the notion of a private language, ie one in which the reference for words or concepts is only known to the person developing the language. Wittgenstein shows how this is radically confused. Language is essentially shareable and cannot be otherwise (in other words, language has to have some sort of public and communal 'cash value' or else it isn't language at all). ii) the notion of following a rule. Similarly, Wittgenstein argues that rules must be public and verifiable, and embedded in a social practice. So grammatical rules, but also things like mathematics must be embedded in a social context which reinforces the rule and gives it its sense. (Practice gives the words their sense) You can't have a rule which is separate from its 'embeddedness' within a particular lebensformen. If you try, then you either have individual choice (hence, not a 'rule') or you have a private language. 3. Now, if you follow through these elements from Wittgenstein's thought then you have a notion of language as something which is a) essentially social and b) embedded in concrete practices. It seems to me that this is a key part of what Pirsig is describing when he talks about the social level, in all its various manifestations. So, although language is not the whole part of what the social level is about, it is a necessary component, in that, if there is no language, there is no social level, and language is the way in which the social level operates and evolves. It is precisely the equivalent of DNA - it is the building block of the social level (ie the lebensformen or 'language game' which can be very small and local is what the social level is built up from). 4. An input from Steven Mithven (? check name) and his book 'The Prehistory of the Mind'. There was a biological change in the architecture of the human brain, related to language processing, which triggered the great advancements in human civilisation 60k - 30k years ago, ie the invention of art, ritual etc. This would seem to tie in quite naturally. 5. The point about Descartes and Pirsig's revision: 'French culture exists, therefore I am' - this is very much a part of what Wittgenstein is debunking. The ironic thing is that Pirsig himself is still a Cartesian (ie an SOM thinker) when it comes to some elements of his system. Specifically, the idea that the fourth level is about 'the manipulation of symbols' comes crashing down if there is any truth in Wittgenstein's perspective. Which, at least as far as the above goes, is not all that controversial any more. What is a symbol if not a 'clear and distinct idea'? And how can it be manipulated in the way that Pirsig wants (eg in higher mathematics) if there is no social lebensformen within which the rules governing that manipulation can make sense? Once more, I think Pirsig's conception of the fourth level has more holes than a piece of fermented milk from a mountainous canton in central Europe..... Regards to all Sam The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed. MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
