[MD] Tit's

[Ron Kulp]

dmb says:
There is no distinction from your point of view because mind is reduced
to matter, or material processes. But this is where da Vinci's drawings
and Heidegger's saying (language is the house of being) comes together
with Pirsig's assertion that all our ideas are culturally derived. The
other day Arlo was explaining how it is necessary to learn the language
in order to really see the world as it is seen in other cultures. That
gets at the same idea too. According to SOM, subjects perceive objects
and truth is a matter of the first corresponding to the second. But
Pirsig says there is no direct connection between the two, that they
exists in an evolutionary relationship with a third thing between them.
That's language, the social level, the third level of the MOQ. That why
Leo drew what he knew rather than what he saw, which is a little like
the Cleveland harbor effect. 

Or, think of it like this. The earth supports many worlds. There is the
so-called physical reality, rocks and animals and walls. But the various
languages cut experience up in different ways so that each one is like a
world of its own. There are worlds within these worlds, in something
like the sense of the "academic world" or the "world of art" or the
"world of hippies". Even if they all speak English, say, the particular
jargon and lingo and slang shows, in a smaller way, how there are
different ways of seeing. Or think about the way Latin and Sanskrit are
dead and arrested languages. This reflects the extremely conservative
nature of the "religious worlds" that preserve them. This is what it
means to say that language is the house of being or that all our ideas
are culturally derived. Was it the later Wittgenstein who said that the
limits of my language are the limits of my world?  In any case, that's
the same idea too. Guys like Rorty nearly equate language with reality. 
 Its text all the way down, they say. That's seem to go too far, but its
still another example of the same idea. As far as I know, every one of
these guys has to reject SOM and the correspondence theory of truth on
the way to this view of language. Even in the milder versions the
"mediation" that language does is very, very powerful. The pair of
glasses in Pirsig's analogy aren't just rose-colored or corrective. They
tell you to see the world in terms of subjects and objects. Those are
some heavy-duty concepts, not just a tint or shade on things. The names
of all the gods and heroes are still haunting this house. Its full of
ghosts more obscure than Galen and that our world too. We could say that
language is IN the eye of the beholder but it would probably be even
more betterer to say language IS the eye of the beholder. So make sure
you talk good. Be the betterest of speeching you can and proudly two.

Ron:
likeum wurdz, 

That's why I think the intellectual level may only be accurately defined
by the culture it relates to and why I say S/O does not Translate to
pictographic language structures.

Making a descriptive statement like:

 "The intellectual level is a culturally
defined level, emergent from the social level 
and may only be accurately
defined by its own language and standards." 

And not a concrete definition like :

"the intellectual level is SOM." 










_________________________________________________________________
Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now!
http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm
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/