[MD] Language

[david buchanan]

Arlo said:
While Platt is off trying to pawn such linguistic paradox off as Revelation, I instead find them a pointing reminder of the limits of what can be said. Like koans, they server as a "slap" to those too caught up in their expectations of what symbolic representation offers.


dmb says:

I think that's an important point. Language has it's limits. This gets at the distinction between the MOQ (which is made of words) and the dynamic quality it talks about (non-verbal experience). I suppose these limits are part of the reason Pirsig never saw much point in the logical analysis of language. These were some smart guys but I just can't help but think the whole idea is silly. Why in the world should we expect language to be a logically coherent system or to be an accurate reflection of how the world "really" is? That's like expecting your bladder to produce fine whiskey or something. I mean, it just wasn't built for that. That's why it's so easy to produce a paradox or a joke. It's full of holes even on the most basic levels of communication. It seems pretty unreasonable to ask language to give us things like truth, certainty or perfect consistency. 
On the other hand, it's a pretty fabulous tool. In the right hands, it can rock your world or change your life and I suppose if it really were logically consistence and coherent it wouldn't have that same power. Somehow it's the ambiguities and nuances that really make it sing. Yea, that's it. It's too soulful to be technically correct, too musical to be a form of logic. 


 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/