Re: MD Access to Quality

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed May 04 2005 - 00:21:18 BST

  • Next message: Tim Chizmar: "RE: MD Lila's Child - A question for Dan Glover"

    Hi Scott,

    Such glee in your voice when you find something to call me on! It's
    kinda flattering, really.

    On 3 May 2005 at 13:46, Scott Roberts wrote:

    msh:
    Yes, but thanks to Chomsky, we now understand that language is rooted
    in biology.

    Scott:
    No we don't. In the first place, Chomsky's deep structure is a debated issue
    (at least it was when I was studying linguistics in the 80's). In the second
    place, if there is a deep structure or Universal Grammar, to say that it is
    biological is merely to find the only place for it (brain hard-wiring) that
    a materialist could accept. Drop the materialist assumption and it could be
    elsewhere, e.g., in a Sheldrakian morphic form.

    msh:
    You're right; it's still debated, something like 95-5% in favor of
    deep structure. The UG model has been virtually uncontested in the
    study of linguistics for 45 years; at least that's my understanding.

    Anyway, l made a comment to Matt in passing, not intending to
    actually move the conversation in that direction, since my technical
    grasp of Linguistics would not allow me to move it very far. What
    I've read of the history of linguistics seems to indicate that every
    linguist on the planet recognizes Chomsky as a genius who single-
    handedly stood the subject on its head.

    As for Sheldrake, you could be right. I don't know enough about
    morphic forms to comment. Has he addressed the issue of a Universal
    Grammar? Has he published and debated his linguistic ideas? If not,
    let's talk about it when his name appears dozens of times in the
    indexes of every linguistic text on earth.

    That'll give me plenty of time to prepare myself. :-)

    BTW, I googled _sheldrake linguistics_ and came up empty. I did find
    an interesting article in Science Daily, date 3/10/05, that says that
    linguistic models are JUST NOW starting to drift a little away from a
    strict Universal Grammar, but it doesn't mention that they are
    drifting toward Sheldrake and morphic forms.

    "For several decades the model for studying linguistics has included
    the assumption that human brains come built with a genetically
    specified 'universal grammar', and that the features of human
    languages are derived from variations in how this universal grammar
    mechanism can operate. No matter how complicated, or mutually
    unintelligible they are, all languages still follow basic guidelines
    common to all of them."

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223150852.htm

    Best,
    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
    --
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com

    "Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why,
    why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he
    understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle

    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 : Wed May 04 2005 - 00:22:02 BST