From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 17:48:17 BST
Hi Paul, (when you get a free moment...)
> Language is learned and maintained socially, but it is
> an intellectual pattern of value, it involves mind.
This is one of the things where I fundamentally disagree with your perspective (much of your
position is coherent, but this is one of those building blocks of a world view which leads to
significant differences).
Could you expand on why you believe this to be true? There is much here to be untangled (which might
make it a suitable topic for MF) but my view, derived from my Wittgenstein studies, is that language
is social, not either intellectual or even 'thinking'. Wittgenstein sums it up at one point by
saying that 'language does not proceed from ratiocination' (ie thinking) - it predates thinking, and
thinking is derivative from it (it is tied up with his 'private language' argument, amongst others).
The thing is, I can't imagine a society that could exist without language - indeed, I think language
pretty much defines a society in some ways - but I can easily imagine a society with a language that
didn't have level 4 of the MoQ; that's precisely what I think most human societies in history were.
Sam
"Phaedrus is fascinated too by the description of the motive of 'duty toward self' which is an
almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word 'dharma', sometimes described as the 'one' of the
Hindus. Can the 'dharma' of the Hindus and the 'virtue' of the Ancient Greeks be identical?" - The
Eudaimonic MoQ says yes. "Lightning hits!"
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 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 18:00:56 BST