[MD] Language as trance

[MarshaV]

Platt,
  
Speaking of mystical poetry - your words.   Thank you.    


Marsha
 
 


On Nov 18, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Platt Holden wrote:

> 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


 
___