Peter, David, Rick,
Thanks for finding the reference of the subject-object-predicate quote, I
have the Bantam version but I found it on p316 chap 28.
"Thus, in cultures whose ancestry includes ancient Greece, one invariably
finds a strong subject-object differentiation because the grammar of the
old Greek mythos presumed a sharp natural division of subjects and
predicates. In cultures such as the Chinese, where subject-predicate
relationships are not rigidly defined by grammar, one finds a corresponding
absence of rigid subject-object philosophy. "
But Chinese grammar does differentiate between subject and object. I don't
know what he means by "rigidly". It has a rule. If you break it you change
the meaning. Seems firm enough to me.
I should make it clear that the last thing I'm doing is denying that the
world's languages show radical differences. Chinese has no direct
translation of the words "yes" and "no" for example. That seems really
strange to us. And they only have one word to cover "he", "she" and "it".
You wonder, how can they communicate without these words that seem so
essential to us. Every language has its own idiosyncrasies, each has unique
concepts, that simply have no equivalent word in any other language. It
comes as no surprise to learn that sign language is one of the most unique
of all. It's a fascinating topic and we can learn a lot about our own
culture from studying others.
But let's not let it get out of hand. All peoples have the same basic life
problems to solve: eating, sleeping, procreation, social relationships. It
is true that they have different methods to solve these problems, but it is
not true that there are basic problems that some cultures just don't solve.
Similarly with language there will be different methods for describing what
things are, and how they relate to each other. But for certain essential
concepts - affirmative-negative, male-female and, I would argue,
subject-object - all languages have a method for dealing with them.
A language can have subject-object differentiation in many ways. Word
order, as in "the cat saw the mouse", is one way, but subject, predicates
and objects don't have to be in that order if there is another method for
distinguishing them. Nor do they necessarily have to be separate words (or
signs), I believe in some languages the subject is indicated by different
suffixes or prefixes or even words - eg "we" changes to "us". The subject
may also be implied rather than stated, if the grammar allows for that.
Nevertheless as long as the elements are there, I would say it's a
subject-object language.
Vicars American Sign Language Course has this to say about the grammar of
American Sign language:
"Certain verbs in sign language can indicate grammatical relationships
(i.e. who did what to whom) through the direction of their movement in
space. The movement of the sign indicates the subject and the object of the
verb. The subject and object (who did it and to whom it was done) are
implicit in the verb movement."
(http://www.lifeprint.com/ASL101/grammar.htm)
So ASL does recognize a metaphysical difference between subject and object
and has a method for distinguishing between the two. It has a different
method from English, sure. But that's not the point. Pirsig is saying that
the subject-object distinction is culturally specific as far as I can tell.
However if these elements can be shown to exist in all other languages then
it can't be culturally specific.
I think it's pretty obvious actually. I mean surely you can translate "the
cat saw the mouse" in any language? But in order to express that sentence,
the language has to distinguish between subject and object (or else we
could never tell who did the seeing and who was seen).
As for the Sapir-Whorf theory, it may be widely held, but that doesn't
stop Steven Pinker from trashing it mercilessly in "The Language Instinct",
saying there is no scientific evidence for it at all. He even points out
the absurdities of those who attempted to prove it, eg: Whorf didn't
actually study any Apaches and it's not clear that he ever even met one!
To take the example of colors. Pirsig says that the Chocktaw Indians don't
distinguish between the colors yellow and green. Does he mean that they
don't think it's important to distinguish so they haven't bothered with the
words , or that they actually CAN'T see it? There is a qualitative
difference between the two. Sapir-Whorf would say that they can't. Pirsig
only says "distinguish" but in the next paragraph he quotes Sapir - "The
fact of the matter is that the real world is to a large extent
unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group ... Forms and
significances which seem obvious to an outsider will be denied outright by
those who carry out the patterns; outlines and implications that are
perfectly clear to these may be absent to the eye of the onlooker."
But the evidence that Pinker presents, and that is, well, pretty obvious,
is that everyone can see all the colors. Perception of color is a
biological mechanism, you can't prevent yourself from seeing it. And anyway
... obviously ... you can see more shades and tones of color than you have
specific names for. But that's only because, unless you are an artist, you
just don't need names for them.
Pirsig gives all these examples to back up his argument that the
subject-object metaphysics is just a cultural pattern. But all of them -
the Eskimo words, the Hopi time, the colors - are either insignificant or
just plain wrong. Actually all the evidence suggests that grammar is
instinctive and subjects and objects are a part of all grammars.
As humans we see the world as a place of solid objects and smooth outlines,
in a 3-dimensional space, progressing through time. And we see ourselves as
a subject distinct from this. We can't help it any more than we can help
seeing the color red. It might not be the truth, and it doesn't mean it
can't be transcended, but nevertheless it has its roots in our biological
make-up and it seems to me that there is more to it than just an
intellectual pattern.
I don't think this observation trashes the MOQ and I'm not making some
net-idiot attempt to kick frog snot at Pirsig. I just think that some of
the evidence he has used is invalid and this needs to be pointed out and
discussed. I suppose Pirsig came across the Sapir-Whorf research and it
supported his theory and he saw no reason to question it. However, now that
we know it's wrong, that has to be acknowledged and the implications of it
for the rest of his philosophy have to be examined.
Diana
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:39 BST