[MD] SOM, what it is

[Ian Glendinning]

I agree with that Matt
"we need a new and better language"
I think that is inescapable - a part of evolution needed for rational
discourse to evolve to any new value.
Ian

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Matt Kundert
<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I don't pay attention much anymore, but I saw this:
>
> Ron said:
> Why Essentialism seems so difficult to break from resides in the grammar of our language, the logical predication and ordering of concepts as laid out per Aristotle based on those assumptions. But as Dmb says that is broken once essentialism is rejected and natural language remains.
>
> Matt:
> I would warn away from the idea of a "natural language."  You don't need it for any of the things that you (or DMB, for that matter) are trying to say.  I don't think it can really pan out (much the same way any other assertion of a "real" X over an infectious/appearance Y--all just part of Plato's essentialism).  Better to stick to the idea that we need a new and better language, not to get back to how language really would be naturally (how would you know it if you saw it?).
>
> Matt
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/
> 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/
>