[MD] Language as trance

[Platt Holden]

Hi All,

The following passage from Lila also strikes me as being applicable to
language:

"The irony is that there are times when the culture actually fosters trance
and hypnosis to further its purposes. The theater's a form of hypnosis. So
are movies and TV. When you enter a movie theater you know that all you're
going to see is shadows per second flashed on a screen to give an illusion
of moving people and objects. Yet despite this knowledge you laugh when the
shadows per second tell jokes and cry when the shadows show actors faking
death. You know they are an illusion yet you enter the illusion and become a
part of it and while the illusion is taking place you are not aware that it
is an illusion. This is hypnosis. It is trance. It's also a form of
temporary insanity" (Lila, 29)

Is language like the theater?  Consider that at root, language consists
of squiggles in the sand and puffs of wind. Despite this we get angry when
those squiggles say something we find outrageous and laugh when puffs of
wind combine to make a joke. We know language is not as real as sticks and
stones that break bones, but many believe it can be just as hurtful -- the
belief behind political correctness. How many similar illusions of words
being equivalent to things affect our political loyalties, not to mention
our reactions to life experiences. Are we all insane?

Well, sometimes. But the kicker is that our thoughts (manipulations of
imaginary symbols) is what makes us human and without which we could not
survive. So we come to think of our illusions as real because we depend on
them for our continuing existence. From that standpoint, thoughts are as
real as the air we breathe. We can get along without movies, but not for
long without thinking. And so we confuse insults with stocks and stones --
words with things,

So then, what about morals? Are they as illusory as thoughts?  Are they
imaginary only? Given that my wordless cat, UTOE, exhibits behavior that he
knows at all times what's best for him, and that unthinking babies know that
a full stomach is better than a hungry one, morals can be confidently placed
in the physical world of sensory perception. Thought not required. Even
atoms behave as if they make moral choices of some physical arrangements
over others.

Which leads to my last question? If morals are as obvious as what is right
in front of our noses why did it take Pirsig two books and many articles and
interviews to point out something which many still don't get? Maybe the
answer is that by common agreements we've restricted  the symbol "morals" to
apply exclusively to our social relationships which, like symbols
themselves, we depend on for survival. Given such dependence, we are
extremely reluctant to ascribe the symbol "morals" to anything other than
our primary concern -- maintaining our own being. To extend that symbol to
seemingly dispensable entities like atoms, aardvarks and altars is as
threatening as telling us to shut up.

So we and Pirsig have a huge hurdle to overcome -- changing what a squiggle
in the sand and a puff of wind points to. How hard is that? Like really hard
because we think our symbols are as immutable as sand and wind.

Regards,

Platt








.





 .

.