[MD] SOM, what it is

[Ron Kulp]

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 replied::
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?).

dmb says:
I don't think Ron meant "natural language" in that sense. I certainly
didn't say anything about "how language really would be naturally". I
suppose Ron just meant normal, conventional language, what native
speakers use. 

Even if we do need a new language, what can we do but wait? I mean,
language is so much bigger and deeper than any one speaker. Ships like
that don't exactly turn on a dime, you know? And what are we supposed to
do in the meantime? Hum? Sure, conventional language has its problems
but what choice do we have but to use it? People need to communicate
with the tools at hand, even philosophers. Sure, occasionally someone
invents a new tool but communication requires a certain amount of
stability. Its the agreement of relatively stable meanings that make it
work, no?

 
Ron:
My point exactly Dmb, 
In linguistic terms, 'natural language' only applies to a language that
has evolved naturally, and the study of natural language primarily
involves native (first language) speakers.
While grammarians, writers of dictionaries, and language policy-makers
all have a certain influence on the evolution of language, their ability
to influence what people think they 'ought' to say is distinct from what
people actually say. Natural language applies to the latter, and is thus
a 'descriptive' rather than a 'prescriptive' term. Thus non-standard
language varieties (such as African American Vernacular English) are
considered to be natural while standard language varieties (such as
Standard American English) which are more 'prescripted' can be
considered to be at least somewhat artificial or constructed.
-"Syntax and the brain: disentangling grammar by selective anomalies",

I brought this up because I wanted to re-emphasize that essentialism
may be detached from our language. It is only when we get into grammar
and formal language does it appear, when words are used in analytic
logical constructions. Analytics core is essentialism. But
if we do not subscribe to it we may still use it with the realization
that it is a convention. It becomes one of many ways to slice up
experience in understandable terms.