[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[Heather Perella]

Hello,


     David B.  said:  "See, the MOQ would not say that
language is a tool we use to cope with the world,
instead it says something more like language IS the
(static) world."

     Khaled's spherical thinking.  I see it here in
this statement.  Once the gestalt takes place, then
the whole approach changes.
     Notice the effort that language has to be
explained as some kind of tool.  It takes the whole
notion of language and gives meaning that is akin to a
hammer or screwdriver.  Yet, somehow I think language
is much more different than something that hits a nail
into a piece of wood.  Maybe it's my approach, but for
me this kind of analogue struck me with such contrast.
 Trying to put language into the same category as a
screwdriver just doesn't work for me. 
     Whereas language in the static world becomes open
to its' own independent identity.  Yes, a snails shell
is static and the pharaoh of Egypt became a static
pattern, too.  Yet, what is static?  What does that
mean?  It is a term neutral enough that once we try to
compare snail shell with pharaoh in static terms, the
meaning of snail shell and pharaoh stay in their
respective places, but their similarity is combined in
a way that retains their independent meanings.
     Could I say this about language being analogous
to tool?  Yes, I guess one could.  Is there meaning
retained?  It seems the answer is no.  Why?  Because
using the analogy in this way goes after the meaning
of language and tool, doesn't it?  I mean how does
language fit with tool?  When I think about everything
a tool does and try to apply that to language, can I
salvage any diverse meaning from language or does all
the meaning of what language is stuffed into the idea
of what we think a tool is?
     At least this is how I see this, maybe I am
missing some clarity as I try to explain this.

     David B. said:  "And you know what horrors can
result from that sort of view, enlightenment is
described in neuro-chemical terms."

     This is referring to modernism.  David B. your
postings in this subject have been excellent.  I am
especially thrilled by you discussion being about
Pirsig and comparing his quality with these other
metaphysics or theories that are in use in this
culture.  This digging into our way of looking and
experiencing the world from all our different angles,
as well as including Pirsig's quality, is helpful. 
Yet, the simply use of Pirsig in your discussion is
the excellence I am most definitely pointing at.  This
is the MOQ and using Pirsig's quality from time to
time would be helpful in our understanding whether it
is comparisons, or not we are trying to make in each
of our postings.  The involvement of others
metaphysics is fine, and I encourage it at times, but
to not make comparisons or not discuss MOQ for long
stretches of time or not at all seems to undermine
something that could be useful, credible, and valid
just waiting on the sidelines to play in the game.

     I haven't finished reading all the posts in this
subject, but I have to go.  I want to send these
comments out just in case our power goes out since it
might thunderstorm here today, and I don't want to
lose what I have already typed.

SA 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com