MARCO TO ANDREA ON LANGUAGE AND REALITY
Dear Andrea,
given that we agree that language is part of reality, and that the
language/reality dualism is a sort of fiction, I will focus on this
point. What is this fictitious game good for? Is it always necessary?
On 1 Febbraio 2001 Andrea Sosio wrote:
> If I think of the way language is actually *used* by human
> beings, I find that every sentence has a role in the interaction
> between human beings. This is the quintessential nature
> and purpose of language.
Yes. Language is primarily a social pattern.
[...]
> In retrospect, why should we care about language being
> precise? I don't think we should. I think we should consider
> language as a part of reality, as you say, and even forget the
> distinction between language and reality.
> That would be true if you used language as a purely
> social tool, as they probably do in some cultures around the
> world. But as it comes, western thought (the one that gave birth
> to positivism, among other things), have taught us to use it
> as an intellectual tool to discuss and investigate about
> what life is, what the world is, as you do in metaphysics.
Yes. Many here stated that language is the *DNA* of intellect: a social
tool, able to support the intellectual basic information. Intellectual
patterns are *made of* language, just like biological patterns are *made
of* inorganic DNA.
[...]
> If you state that the gap between language and reality does
> not exist, that this is a false duality, to that I agree in general.
> This means that your reality *is* your language.
hmmm... actually I state simply that language is part of (my???)
reality, not reality itself. Let me try a small example: my house is
made of bricks, but my house is not simply bricks. Language is the
social brick we use in order to build intellect. But my intellect is not
simply language: It uses the social language as support. Language is a
necessary condition for intellect, but not sufficient.
> But I also think that when you begin talking metaphysics, you
> "pretend" not to believe this, or you're not in the game.
Well, it depends a lot on the purpose... You see, this *game*, the game
of S/O Logic, has produced good results. All our western culture and our
scientific advancements are based upon this game. S/O Logic is a
perfect tool in order to investigate and dominate a part of reality. The
scientific method is perfect to control the inorganic and biologic
levels. We can build houses and bridges and computers; we can cure
cancer and even create new forms of life.
So I agree that if I want to be scientific I must pretend to investigate
a separated reality.
> Unless you think that the purpose of metaphysics is that
> of "creating a better language",
[...]
> Agreed. Really, agreed. But can we really play this game? Are we
> playing it? Is this the game of MOQ discussion?
[...]
> Perhaps, we can weaken the rules of the
> game and progress somehow within the fiction of
> language/reality dualism, and then, when we are to sum
> up, add this fundamental piece again: remember
> that we were just pretending to be approximating truth; we
> have always been just building a better truth, where better
> is only defined by our immediate perception of value and
> by *no other means*.
>
Wise words. I strongly agree that it's important to remember that by
this pretension I'm forcing the situation. One problem is that too many
don't remember.
But IMO it's not enough. What about the investigation of the social and
intellectual levels? They also are part of reality but is this *Logic*
game a good game on this ground? Can logic successfully investigate
emotions? Can logic successfully investigate happiness? Can logic
successfully investigate art? Can logic successfully investigate itself?
Yes, the purpose of intellect is to investigate reality. All reality.
Language is the tool, but I've an enlarged concept of what's a language.
A language is generally the code by which we share socially the result
of our investigations.
Take art, for example. Drama. It's a language. IMO it's a better way to
investigate and communicate realities like emotions, justice, happiness,
sense of Quality. In your fictitious *game* can you explain
*objectively* what is pain? Oh, yes, many physiologists surely will
offer dozens of *interpretations* of this phenomenon. They will explain
how many hormones are involved in the process, how they interact with
brain's cells. Then you watch a movie, like Schindler's List, or Life is
Beautiful, and if you abandon your self for a moment you feel pain. Of
course, a fictitious pain. But isn't fictitious the scientific pain as
explained by physiology?
Both fictitious pains have an intellectual value. The scientific one is
good to create medicines for depression, ache. The artistic one can be
good to create a *social medicine* against, for example, violence and
racism. Ethics can't be merely logic.
Here comes my caution about mysticism: in a SOMish context, all what's
mysterious and out of a scientific/logic domain is mystic. The swindle
is that to consider logic and rationality almost the same thing. In a
MOQish view, we can find a good rational explanation of many mystic
(non-logic) phenomena.
Take for example the moments in which you are alone, on the top of a
mountain, laying down on the ground , looking at the blue sky. You feel
you are in connection with nature, with the world, with everything. And
you feel good.
Moment 0 (The Quality event). The dynamic experience.
Moment 1 (The SOLish attempt) Then, when you try in the first moment to
rationalize it on the usual S/O Logic basis, this sense of good is an
enigma. A rational SOL-based view can't understand what there's of
good. No food. No money to gain. No women to conquer. No football
matches to watch. S/O Logic tends to classify everything, and classifies
this moment as a mystic enigma. Many people stop here in the moment 1,
stand up and walk away with their enigma. When they go back home, the
SOL view makes them forget all.
Moment 2 (The Q re-mapping) But if you change your point of view, away
from what you are losing to what you are gaining, everything becomes
rationally clear. It's not an enigma. There's nothing mystic. In the
same moment in which you lose food, money, women and football, you gain
the freedom from every social connection. And the freedom from the need
of a SOL view. You don't need anymore a strong representation of your
SELF in opposition to the rest of the world. You RATIONALLY UNDERSTAND
you are part of the rest of the world, and you RATIONALLY UNDERSTAND
that the SOL is limited by its need to classify everything in order to
control it. You realize that SOL is very useful in a q-social context,
but it's not enough to explain Quality. At the contrary, the Q-idea
comes later, and it's able to explain the SOL. You can go back home with
a new awareness of everything. Finally, if you are an artist, you will
be able to express that moment and share it with the others.
So, we have enlarged the rules of the game. An enlarged language for a
wider range of reality to investigate. And here is the evidence that
language can't be separated by reality, and it's not merely a static
tool. Firstly, it comes from the dynamic encounter with reality, when
you feel you are not separated by reality. Secondly, as it is primarily
a social tool, active within the social environment, it changes people.
And if man is the measure of things.....
>
> Art is of course an interesting issue. The artist expresses
> static quality.
I don't know exactly what you mean here.... I've had an infinite
discussion (with Roger, Platt, Danila, Elephant and others) about art
and intellect last November / December on this forum. In the end, we
reached the conclusion that art (as High Quality Endeavor) and science
share the same purpose. Investigate and communicate reality. Of course
there are differences in methods, but this is secondary. The important
thing is that even scientists are artists. They have intuitions and then
they use a method in order to refine their job and share the results. Of
course on a different ground. Usually the artists give an holistic
representation of reality while scientists offer an analytic
representation.
In conclusion, I think we agree on many points. Maybe I have a less
faith in the game of logic, even in the weakened version you suggest. As
said, it gives good results, but it can't be exhaustive. There are
different good games based upon different forms of language. Logic
without an artistic sense of Quality is as wrong as an
illogic/irrational way of thinking. Only the MOQ (for what I know) seems
to be able to include both Logic and Art within the same frame.
tks for reading
Marco
p.s.
> I would like to know more precisely what you mean by "notation".
I'll try to translate it into your language :-) Connotazione. Maybe it
was better "connotation" even in English.
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 - 16:01:03 BST