[MD] Fw: relative.

[118]

Hi Ham,
Thanks for the response.  I have a couple of comments below:

On 1/13/12, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.)

Mark:
Yes I will agree with this, Wittgenstein went as far as to propose
that philosophy IS semantics.  Then I think he realized that he had
painted himself into a box (my opinion).  As I see it, concepts are
objects which can be manipulated in meaningful ways.  In this way we
are still dealing with an objectified world.  The point I was trying
to make was that language is the result of us seeing the world in a
certain way, as well as something with perpetuates that seeing.  If
instead we saw "objects" not as something external, but as something
projected (we do create objects with our brains), we get a different
way of seeing.  The quote I provided at the end of that post, did just
that.  No longer do we see a man riding a horse, but we are the man
riding the horse.  This form of communication is much more revealing
than the picture variety, for the riding of the horse is much more
than just the picture.
>
> 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.)

I would agree with you.  There is creative word play within a specific
contextual format.  There is also the possibility of changing the
contextual format.  That is a very different thing.  But, I can stick
with your articulation, it brings me to good places.  My long-awaited
(by you) outline will be in your format.  I have been presenting some
media leaks in the mean time.  Seems to work in politics.
>
> 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?

Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what exactly Joe means.
So, I make a lot of assumptions.  He uses the term evolution in a very
different way than what I am used to.

Procratinatingly speaking,
Mark

ps, no spell check available, and I am too lazy to look this over,
sorry about that.
>
> 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
>
> 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
>