[MD] Fw: relative.

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


(Sorry for the delay.  For some unknown reason, three previous attempts to 
post this reply were rejected by the postmaster.)

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:43 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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. ...
>
> 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.

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 or
replace objective reality.  It is experiential images and intellectual
precepts for which words were invented in the first place.
Language is simply a tool for communicating what we imagine
or experience.  Photographs can also serve this purpose.

Because philosophy, especially metaphysics, deals with
conceptions and ideas beyond experience, language is critical\
for the philosopher.  That's why I have always stressed the
importance of the concept over words or definitions.  If we
let terminology get in the way, its purpose is never achieved.
(Which is also probably why Pirsig shunned metaphysics,
and why Bo placed so much emphasis on intellection.)

I tend to discourage "creative wordplay" as a means of
developing a philosophy.  Indeed, if a concept can't stand on
its own as a cogent premise, no configuration of words or
symbols will correct the inadequacy.  As for the alleged
"SO infatuation", I have no wish to "step out and experiment"
with semiotic theories which can only distract from the
concept I'm articulating.  (You may want to consider this caveat
before submitting your long-awaited outline to me.)

Thanks for your interest in my response to Joe.  Personally,
I think he has conflated "evolution" with "relative", but his use
of "definable" to describe experiential reality (existence) is
brilliant.  Don't you agree?

Definitively speaking,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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