From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 10:12:49 BST
Hi Paul,
<snip>
: I think that the key words there are 'socially
: learned' and 'meaning'. If you think of learning a
: language, you don't learn every phrase you will ever
: use. You learn the meaning of some words and phrases
: at the beginning, but it is the underlying structure
: and order (grammar) of the language that you really
: must grasp before you can say you are fluent. Grasping
: underlying structure and order is an intellectual
: activity to me.
:
: You can of course just learn the meaning of some
: particular phrases for particular situations as a lot
: of holidaymakers do, but that is an example of social
: learning limited to repetition to me. Although it does
: enable communication of meaning and is a social
: activity.
I think there is a little too much Chomsky and not enough Wittgenstein in there. As I understand it,
we first learn how to use language through being initiated into a 'form of life', ie an overall
context of gesture and human interaction. And I think it possible to be fluent in a language without
understanding its underlying structure and order (how many of us fully understand the underlying
structure and order of English grammar? I wouldn't say that I do, but I do consider myself fluent in
English!) I agree that grasping the underlying structure is an intellectual activity. This is why I
think language is one of the threshold innovations that allows the social level to come into being
(and might conceivably be coterminous with the social level; I'm not sure about that).
<snip>
: It also has become a useful way to seperate other
: things into the 3rd and 4th levels for me. For
: instance, in British politics, we have the
: conservative ideology in the 4th level and the
: particular Conservative Party led by Ian Duncan-Smith
: right now, in the 3rd level. It would be moral for the
: conservative ideology to destroy the Conservative
: Party (a view probably held by many in the party!).
Indeed!
<snip>
: However, Pirsig turns this around and says the nature
: of reality is Dynamic and unknowable and the derived
: reality is static and knowable. Thus the intellect is
: good for latching Quality explanations of experience
: beyond the specific and particular and furthering
: evolution but bad for understanding the Dynamic nature
: of reality.
I'm happy with that.
: The intellectual level runs into problems when it
: starts looking for the underlying structure of the
: whole universe in inorganic nature which changes
: according to its ideas about it anyway. I agree that
: the yellow brick road to the Grand Unifying Theory of
: everything is not where Quality is to be found.
:
: But I honestly think that no 'level' will ever lead to
: Quality, if anything, Quality is what is leading you.
: The responses made at all levels of experience are all
: based on Quality, the best responses seem to bring
: about a coherence in all levels and a harmony which we
: would do well to recognise without understanding.
:
: That is probably my definition of eudaimonia.
Sounds pretty good to me, although I would want to get more specific.
Cheers
Sam
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 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 10:57:38 BST