From: max demian (oikoumenist@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Feb 17 2005 - 17:52:52 GMT
Hello, I am new to this forum and am interested in this stream of posts; in
part because I have an evolving interest in linguistics and in critical
theory. (Pleas excuse me if I do not post correctly.) I do have a couple of
question/observations/concerns/ideas. They are influenced by my
understanding of ZMM and my study of philosophers Deleuze and Guattari. I
have come to understand language as being ‘material’ in quality; that is,
language always having a material end. Similarly, I feel that language is a
force. This is easily seen in politics but relevant always. Perhaps all
understanding has material consequences, though I am not sure. The idea of
“God” alone has affected the world in tremendous material ways. Would this
idea about the nature of language be consistent with the idea of DQ? One of
my favorite quotes of Pirsig’s is: “Once the Good has been ‘contained’ as a
dialectical idea it is no trouble for another philosopher to come along and
show by dialectical methods that “grete,” the Good, can be more
advantageously demoted to a lower position within a ‘true’ order of things,
more ‘compatible’ with the inner workings of dialectic.” I believe that this
ability of discourse to affect rhetorical understanding can not help but
influence the material world. This would, in my mind, be an example of where
language is dynamic. However, in this way, a word, once defined
discursively, would seem to loose some of its dynamic quality as it becomes
static and restricted to the meaning that seeks to define it. This cannot be
helped and is a flaw of language. By nature, a noun is a static idea. To
define kills the dynamic quality of language by reducing it to static
qualities. And yet, language does have force, not because of its restrictive
nature but because of its dynamic quality. I’ve heard that icons used by
oriental languages are ‘images,’ not of static realities, but of ideas in
motion with a before and an after. This idea helps me understand the dynamic
nature of language as not static but in motion and dynamic. I was just
wondering what you all had to think about this take on language and
understanding. I try to keep my ideas from becoming static but in a way
“becoming.” Peace, Max
>From: "Ant McWatt" <antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: MD ID/Ling, again
>Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:30:00 +0000
>
>Ian Glendinning stated February 16th 2005:
>
>Ant,
>
>These were two specific [references] I noted earlier ...
>
>The first is one of many blogs about Dr James Austin's "Zen and the
>Brain" on which Marsha also commented positively on MoQ Discuss
>after I'd drawn attention to it...
>
>http://www.psybertron.org/2004/11/amazing-brain.html
>
>(I would say though, that I was getting
>the same message from Sacks, Edelman, Zeman and Searle.)
>
>[See] http://www.psybertron.org/2004/11/chalmers-and-qualia.html
>
>[And] this is my most recent post.
>
>http://www.psybertron.org/2005/02/consciousness-and-pirsig.html
>
>I have many other unposted notes on those 5 authors books referred
>to.
>
>Ant McWatt notes:
>
>Thanks for these references Ian. Some of them are new to me while a couple
>are familiar faces especially David Chalmers and John Searle. The latter
>is someone featured heavily in Chapter 3 of my PhD thesis as he makes a lot
>of sense for an SOM philosopher. One of the few SOMists I have serious
>time for, actually. I also found Chalmers interesting though he appears
>to be conflating concepts by intuition with concepts by postulation with
>his "Hard Question" of consciousness. As I note:
>
>"Essentially, it appears that Chalmers is conflating the ‘connecting
>principles’ for why consciousness developed (from physical matter) with the
>‘connecting principles’ of how consciousness and physical matter operate
>between each other. Yet, he is addressing the second question when his
>‘hard question’ clearly relates to the first. In consequence, Chalmers
>confuses the metaphysical obstacles of the connecting principles between
>mind and matter with the scientific explanation of their relationship.
>Critically, the scientific explanations of consciousness (as with theories
>concerning phenomena such as electricity or light) are essentially concepts
>by postulation and, as such, open to continual revision."
>
>I hope that Chalmers doesn’t mislead too many of his readers with this
>conflation. His brief dismissal of evolutionary criteria and lack of
>analysis of the influence that social patterns have on intellectual
>patterns are further limitations with his ideas. (Still, at least, he
>hasn’t set himself as some sort of expert on consciousness… :)
>
>Anyway, the title of James Austin's text looks especially interesting so it
>will be another book for my 2005 reading list!
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Anthony.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself with cool new emoticons
>http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 17 2005 - 18:00:32 GMT