You're arguing that experiences are projected into the social domain by the use of language. But in my view, they are merely projected into the *social* domain by the use of language. There are several different perspectives on language. The perspective that language is based on rules is one (interesting) perspective, but it's not the experiential perspective....
I maintain that both the experiential and the scientific views of mind are worthwhile. The fact that experiences are sometimes communicated in language (which can be understood both experientially and scientifically) doesn't change this.
My view here is closely tied to that of Peirce, who held that one could view any entity from the perspectives of First (raw experience), Second (physical reaction) and Third (relationship)
-- Ben G
************
> I don't believe that internal events must have external criteria in order
> to be considered valid and existent. This may be true from the scientific
> perspective, but not from all possible (or all useful) perspectives.
Well, to name internal events, there have to be rules/criteria for correct use
of a term/name, like always for any use of language. How do you know how to
use the word 'pain' for example, how did you learn its rule(s)? Well probably
from your parents who told you you were in pain when you hit your knee or
something like that and screamed afterwards. Behaviour was the necessary
basis for this learning event.
For more information on this, see Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations,
Ryle's Concept of Mind, Dennett, Davidson etc.
Arnoud
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
