From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 07:20:54 BST
Hi Matt --
> Wittgenstein teaches us that there isn't anything
> more to our concepts than words. One can't point to
> or express a concept in anything but words, so it is
> quite unclear how one could cash in on the
> distinction between them.
If I take you and Ludwig literally, it would appear that you don't believe
there is such a thing as a concept, let alone a theory to explain it. How
are you able to function in physical reality? If we are not expressing
concepts in words, just what do you think we ARE expressing? Human beings
have managed to communicate their concepts in words quite well, which is why
they developed language.
What about numbers in place of words? Does an equilateral triangle
expressed as a polygon with three 60 degree angles convey any meaning to
you? Physicists and mathematicians seem to feel that theories having to do
with the physical world can only be expressed in equations. Are you of that
school? Otherwise, I can't understand how you're able to glean any ideas
from books, lectures, or conversation, inasmuch as all of these knowledge
sources are word-based.
> I find this implicit in Pirsig with his idea of static intellectual
> patterns. Language, for Pirsig, are static patterns of usage. They form
a
> web that produces meaning. There's no distinction in Pirsig between
> conceptual patterns and language patterns in Pirsig, all we have are
> intellectual patterns. ...
Are not these patterns ideas or concepts, whether or not they are put into
words? If I decide I'd like to have ham and eggs for breakfast tomorrow, I
don't arrive at the idea by interrogating myself in words. But if I tell my
wife "I want ham and eggs for breakfast," she understands the idea exactly.
And I usually end up with what I ask for. So how can you say "there isn't
anything more to our concepts than words"?
> If this is the case, then having a certain
> conceptual structure is a matter of learning or being
> educated in a certain web, or static pattern, of use,
> rather than, as in you, a matter of discovering the
> single set of concepts behind learned language
> (whatever language it might be).
Of course we have to learn what words stand for and how to use them. I
assume you and Wittgenstein are not referring to illiterates or deaf mutes,
or that we are not unexpectedly confronted by a language that is foreign to
us.
> No, Ham, you still don't get it. I understand your statements
> very well. I understand the conceptual moves you are making.
> Its just that I happen to _reject_ them.
Well, that's a horse of a different color, isn't it? If you understand my
statements and my "conceptual moves", you must also understand the concepts
at least well enough to "reject them."
> And the thing I continually see you doing is seeing the
> moves I'm making and thinking that they're analogous
> to the ones you make. They aren't, though. Its is more
> like we are playing two different games.
Yes, I do get that impression. But I'm at a disadvantage because I don't
know the rules of your game, while I follow traditional rules that you know
very well but "just happen to reject". What, then, do you suggest I do?
> One usually only comes to be playing the kind of game
> I play by way of rejecting the game you play. So learning
> why I've "latched on to a mathematician/psychologist who
> claims there can be no such thing as a theory" would
> indeed be to learn why I've rejected the game you play,
> it would be to learn the reasons and arguments for leaving
> that game behind.
Well, Matt, expressing ideas in the English language is the only form of
communication I know. I also recognize criticism in the same language when
I see it. If you're convinced that the ideas I'm explaining are worthless
or invalid, then it would seem to make little difference what rules or
language I played by.
> Every time I engage you I'm giving you reasons for
> rejecting the whole game you're playing. I do that
> because that's the _only_ way for me to engage you.
I find continual discouragement a rather odd way to "engage" someone in
discussion or anything else. Why would you want to engage me at all if you
see no value in what I'm saying?
Again, I don't think it's possible that I can discuss philosophy with
someone of your mindset. Perhaps we should simply stay out of each other's
way. If you have another idea, I'm quite confident that I'll be able to
comprehend it in the word format known as a sentence.
Essentially bewildered,
Ham
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 : Tue Oct 04 2005 - 07:25:12 BST