[MD] WHY MoQ IS PARALYzED

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Krimel]
How could anyone possibly give you an example of a thought not 
dictated by grammar or words? How would the thought be conveyed?

[Arlo]
Did you ever have a thought that was not "in words"? Now, of course 
you've had "gut feelings" and "aesthetic experiences" that are 
pre-verbal, pre-intellectual, pre-semiotic, I grant that. But that's 
my point... "intellectualization" comes about as that experience is 
coded in words, "thought" is entirely semiotic (I'll stray from using 
"linguistic" for now), and in the process of moving from 
"pre-semiotic" to "semiotic" we force the pre-semiotic experience 
into the structure provided by our semiotic repertoire. This is an 
unavoidable and ubiquitous process of "selection" (to use Pirsig's 
notion). We simply cannot think outside our semiotic system 
(language, mostly). How could we?

[Krimel]
Language facilitates thought. It makes certain kinds of thought 
possible that might not be otherwise. But it seems to me that 
language reveals the structure of thought more than it dictates the 
structure of thought. Or at least this is a two way interaction.

[Arlo]
Yes, it is a two-way interaction. Language is not dead. It grows. The 
act of semiosis (translating the pre-intellectual into the 
intellectual) mutates both the pre-intellectual AND the intellectual. 
They way we conceive of our pre-intellectual experiences is mutated 
the moment we encapsulate it in words, and our intellectual system is 
mutated as novel pre-intellectual experiences are so encoded. But 
these mutations occur within a structurated trajectory.

On top of this, language is social. As part of the social world we 
live in, we are constantly negotiating and affirming the semiotic 
structure we deploy.

[Krimel]
Also if you restrict thought to intellectual thought what does that 
mean? Aren't you in effect saying that intellectual thought is verbal 
thought so thought must be verbal?

[Arlo]
Did you ever have a thought that was not verbal? Describe this as 
best you can. How did you know what you were thinking? Now, as I 
said, I certainly grant there are pre-intellectual, pre-verbal 
experiences, call them aesthetic experiences if you wish, but these 
are not "thoughts". They lead to all kinds of thoughts, to be sure.

Also keep in mind that "verbal" is great is you are thinking in the 
post-modern "everything is a text", Derridan sense. But if we are 
using the more traditional meaning, it's best to use "semiotic", 
which of course points to any symbol used to convey meaning. That way 
people like Platt who think "2+2=4" is not "verbal" won't get confused.