As far as colors et al...we're talking distinctions. The country
music example is great. I use classical music for the example when i
work with students - that someone who's really listened to a lot of
classical music has more disctinctions and hears things i do not. the
items are there - i just can't hrear them because i don't know what to
listen for (same as pirsig's green flash example)
believeing IS seeing.
Shalom
David Lind
Trickster@postmark.net
Richard Budd wrote:
> 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
>
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