[MD] relative

[mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net]

Mark, Ham, Joe,

Mark:

> Hi Ham,
>
> I wanted to respond to the following paragraph of yours:
>
> On 1/10/12, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>> Greetings, Joe --
>>
>>
>> For some time I have referred to existence as a "differentiated, relational"
>> system, which seems to have fallen on deaf ears.  The appellation
>> "definable", however, not only makes "relative" clear in this context, it
>> offers the possibility of a new perspective on Existence itself.   Why can't
>> we discard SO as a "metaphysical" paradigm --which it really isn't--and
>> instead describe Existence as "Definable Reality".  After all, despite the
>> fact that the conscious self eludes proper definition, everything it
>> experiences is definable.  Moreover, if knowledge is what we learn from
>> experience, then it is the Individual who defines it.  And, when all
>> individuals define experience in the same way, we have universal knowledge
>> (which is why people like Marsha prefer the term "conventional").
>
> Can't we discard SO as a paradigm?  You may be interested in the following:
>
> "[Moonhawk:] the speakers specifically of Algonkian languages say they
> can talk all day long and never utter a single noun".
>
> Taken from: Linguistics & Nominalising Languages - 3
> At: http://www.enformy.com/ll08.htm
>
> Most of such language occurs through verbs which could be a different
> way of viewing reality.  It is also of interest that Pirsig was
> interested in the American Indians.  Coincidence?
>
> There is of course a theory that says that language structures the way
> in which we see reality.  There is also discussion of the nounyness of
> our current language and what we can do about it.  I will refer you to
> the following short essay:
>
> http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2006/10/05/the-mouth-speaks-the-mind-boggles/
>
> As with any Westerner, Ham, you choose to identify everything with
> nouns and in such a way create everything into objects.  But perhaps
> this is not the only way to see things as you claim.  Perhaps there is
> something to minimizing our SO infatuation, that only takes some
> effort.  In the second link there are links within that can take you
> to strange places if you are willing to step out and experiment.
>
> For example:
> http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2006/10/02/animism-native-language-and-quantum-linguistics/
>
> Which contains the following:
> "In the end, though, we still have a language fundamentally oriented
> around abstractions and visual concepts; we tend to “see” what the
> speaker describes. In the Native American language of Blackfoot
> (Alford 2002), if you speak about someone riding a horse, in that
> genderless and fundamentally relative language, the listener receives
> the feeling of riding, not the picture of riding; the movement, sway,
> and balance of riding the horse, not the image of a rider. Notice also
> that the listener identifies empathetically with the one doing the
> riding. You can see someone riding without much impact, but if you
> “feel” someone riding you’ve entered their world (and essentially
> begun tracking them; see any of the many articles I’ve written here on
> the nature of tracking)."
>
>

Tuukka:

I don't know what SO is as a metaphysical paradigm. If it is just  
thinking in subjects and objects then, well, no, I don't think there  
is any realistic chance of having us discard that. But if SOM is  
refusal to think in terms of recursive systems -- refusal to construct  
a structurally context-free metaphysics -- then that can be discarded.

Ham said:

  After all, despite the
>> fact that the conscious self eludes proper definition, everything it
>> experiences is definable.

Tuukka:

Well I don't think everything I have experienced would be definable.  
But I'd have a hard time telling you what those experiences were. I  
perceived them, yes, but I didn't understand them in the conventional  
meaning of "understanding".

I believe there is use of language that is not definable. In fact, the  
problem of induction has remained unsolved for 300 years because a  
certain concept pair, "relevance" and "original objective", cannot be  
properly defined. The MOQ actually could solve this problem, but  
that's not the point. The point is if it takes 300 years to solve that  
problem, the one who began solving it couldn't have even been able to  
thoroughly understand what the problem is.

-Tuukka