From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 10:27:45 BST
Hi Sam
> > 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).
We think because we speak? It seems right, but I think
that at the social level prior to intellect I would
see it as a vocal counterpart of gestures and
emotions, not a communication of ideas. Perhaps a
tribal song to convey tribal identity and illustrate a
hierarchy. A more sophisticated, non-genetic version
of what can be observed in many animals who organise
into groups.
I see it more as the meaning of sounds and gestures
that has been learned through repetition to be of
benefit to recreate and react to more than the
construction of sentences.
Learned communication through words and gestures may
be a social pattern of value, but talking to convey
ideas, and reading and writing structured language I
think is better thought of as intellectual.
So language in the sense that we tend to use it now is
predominantly an intellectual pattern of value to me.
But note that the mechanisms for learning language are
social institutions, family, school etc.
It may be the "machine language interface" you are
looking for between the 3rd and 4th levels? The limit
of the social level and the beginning of the
intellectual level, thinking is like uttering words in
the mind?
> 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.
I can't imagine a "culture" without a developed
language but a prehistoric society built on ritual and
limited communication - vocal counterparts of gestures
- I can imagine. It really becomes a guessing game
though, we simply were not there and the records we
have can support a lot of different arguments.
Interesting though.
cheers
Paul
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.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 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 10:28:52 BST