Hey all,
I did this kind of quickly so I may have botched the order of Diana's
comments (sorry).
DIANA:
> "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."
RICK:
I'm not sure what this last sentence means--- I guess it depends on what
"basic problems" your talking about. Obviously all cultures need to solve
the basic biological "problems" you've named; eating, sleeping,
procreation--- but within the levels of society and intellect I'm fairly
certain that different cultures take vastly different approaches; some
socio/intellectual needs (or problems) get addressed, some don't.
DIANA:
"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."
RICK:
Don't you think that different metaphysical structures might be the reason
for all of those different methods. The solutions may look the same,
because they're solutions to the same problems--- (i.e.. just because we can
map our idea of subject/object neatly on to the Chinese solution to the same
problem doesn't really mean that they necessarily have these concepts.)
AS FOR SAPIR/WHORF:
Our Inorganic and Biological environments influence our needs, our needs
influence our language development, our language development influences our
social and intellectual development. I still don't see the problem here.
If we read the Sapir quote to read: "The fact of the matter is that the
[socio/intellectual] 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." --- I
think it works fine. I doubt this what Sapir meant, but I think it's what
Pirsig was trying to get at.
DIANA:
"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."
RICK:
I think he means: they don't think it's important to distinguish so they
haven't bothered with the words so DON'T see it. It's like the way that all
country music sounds alike to me. But a fan of that music hears dozens of
different kinds of country music. I don't know the names of the styles, I'm
not familiar with the differences... I think the psychologists call it an
"outgroup bias'.
DIANA:
"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."
RICK:
It's the ZAMM difference between pre and post intellectual awareness.
Perception of color is a biological mech., we all SEE it pre intellectually,
but if we have no need to distinguish, we may not intellectually NOTICE all
of the differences that our preintellect is "sensing". Remember that quote
about taking a handful of sand from the beach and calling it reality... its
like that.
DIANA:
"...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!"
RICK:
I'll admit I haven't read Pinker's book and don't know the rest of his
argument, but this is an ad hominem attack, (or ad personum for you
rhetoricians out there). It only holds water if Sapir claimed that he
studied he actually the Indians and that is what his conclusions are based
on (which I don't precisely recall). If he read dozens of reliable books
and journals and other such materials about Apaches and their language then
I see no pressing need for him to actually have met a real apache.
good stuff,
Rick
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 - 16:00:40 BST