From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Fri Feb 18 2005 - 10:02:42 GMT
Max, welcome,
If you're saying ...
"Language looks static (material) once it's uttered / written / recorded,
but is in fact dynamic (force) as it is used / re-used / re-interpreted."
and
"Dynamic = Good = Quality = Becoming"
Then I would agree.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "max demian" <oikoumenist@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:52 PM
Subject: RE: MD ID/Ling, again
> 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
>
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 : Fri Feb 18 2005 - 11:17:04 GMT