[MD] relative

[Ham Priday]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:43 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [MD] relative


> Hi Ham,
>
> I wanted to respond to the following paragraph of yours:
>
>> 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").
>
> 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. ...

Yes, and there have been a few MDers who have argued for a semiotic reality. 
Certainly words are what we use to convey images and precepts.  But nouns 
and verbs don't create objective reality.  It is experiential images and 
precepts for which the communicators invented language in the first place. 
have that we They are use creates impressions

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)."

And so, Bon Voyage!

Mark
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>
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/md/archives.html