[MD] Language

[X Acto]

DmB,
I know I'm Harping on Aristotle, but it's what I'm reading.
There are places throughout the collection that point
out how the Pythagoreans really lent to the idea 
of gramatic logical consistancy and the philosphical
problems that arise from it.

What I have gained from reading Plato's accounts 
and Aristotles theories of explaination, is how elenchus
reduced the semantic meaning of the word "good"
to such a broad generalization of understanding that
it was supposed to be of a primary nature, of limit
and form and as Aristotle would add, of explaination 
and meaning.

It was never the good Plato was after but the reduction of what
we mean by the term.
It was never truth, that Aristotle was after but clarity in meaning.

The more I delve into it, it seems the mathematicians were the ones
who saw the world in an expression of number. We can see
the philosphical problems arising out of it. 

-Ron

 


----- Original Message ----
From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 1:12:58 AM
Subject: [MD] Language


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/
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/