Ciao Marco,
your message was really interesting.
Marco ha scritto:
>"language", logic, science, metaphysics are part of the same reality they
want to grasp.... so when they try to get closer
>to reality, they evolve, and the result is a reality modification. My point
about the language/reality mismatch
>is that it's a false problem, as language is primarily a real entity
itself...
>To say that reality is static, or that it is dynamic, it's the same mistake
of considering one only aspect.
>Language has a double nature: it is statically, and interacts dynamically.
Just like every *real* entity, it interacts
>with reality (dynamically, in the Q event) and then translates the
experience according to static patterns. The result
>are new real entities (ideas, concepts and so on....). Language is not
purely static: actually, it modifies reality and it >evolves at the same
time. In this, I don't see huge differences between language and biologic
living beings. At every
>level of experience, the process is always to evolve towards excellence.
>Any reality/language division is a door opened to the subject/object
division.
In a sense, I completely agree. I will try to explain why. (See also my last
posting, in reply to elephant).
I agree to the analogy between language and biological beings. I think,
nevertheless, that I need to state more exactly what I am thinking about
when I say "language" (at least in these postings). Also, at this time I
will let logic behind. Let me consider just language proper, and to make it
simpler, let's even restrict the discussion to spoken/written language (I
shall address the other related concepts later). In general, I agree with
you that language is an evolving entity, a part of reality, and of course
dynamic in *itself*.
If I think of the way language is actually *used* by human beings, I find
that every sentence has a role in the interaction between human beings. This
is the quintessential nature and purpose of language. This is how language
was born. And seeing this clearly yields a specific way of looking at
language, which is *not* the one that western thought has usually ascribed
to it. That may sound strange, so I will make an example. I will pick one
from the MOQ mailing list itself (I will pick at random: no comment/attack
etc meant vs the author of the sentences I quote).
Yesterday I read a message where Platt made the following comment about the
postmodernist tenet "there is no Absolute Truth":
PLATT:
>I cannot agree with a tenet based on a logical absurdity. The tenet
>posits an absolute truth that denies an absolute truth. Its a self-
>contradiction , similar to statements like all generalizations are false
>and no one can be certain of anything.
Now, "there is no Absolute Truth", as a part of language, has a meaning, or
more precisely a *role*, within an interaction. Wittgenstein would say that
it is a *move* in a game. For all I know, Platt may be completely aware of
the game going on with the postmodernist, and his can be a perfectly legal
move. But I think that the average person, reading the sentence above, could
consider it as perfectly meaningful in itself. It may seem that Platt is of
course *right*.
But the non obvious point is that if we look at Platt's comment as
meaningful in itself, we do so because we believe that all context is there,
and thus, that he (sorry - is Platt a "he"?) is taking the postmodernist
sentence "literally". But this is absurd if you think twice. At least
"Absolute" and "Truth" have no obvious, exact definition, and I don't think
any of us would have an easy job finding one. How can you comment on the
literal meaning of the sentence if you don't know what the postmodernist are
saying about what?
The postmodernists' motto is really a move in a game. You cannot say what it
*means*; you can give an interpretation, that is, reformulate it in other
words. For example, here is a possible translation (that I'm not ascribing
to the postmodernist or anyone else): "I would feel abused if anyone tried
to impose what s/he believes to be the Truth on me;
and I also wouldn't believe that s/he has means whereby s/he can prove,
beyond doubt, to be speaking the Truth
and/or to have the right to impose it." Here's another, possibly coming from
a Nazi doctor working in a concentration camp: "You can't judge my acts, for
there is no Absolute Truth".
Could language be associated to meaning by something less loose? The
positivists tried, and they came out with the idea (that I agree with) that
language may have an exact meaning (provided you do a little positivist
mirror-climbing to conceal minor problems here and there) as long as you
speak of "scientific facts". To speak of scientific facts, you have to do
two things: first, think SOM; then, speak only of functions and never of
value. Language from any other standpoint and directed towards any other
purpose is not precise.
In retrospect, why should we care about language being precise? I don't
think we should. I think we should consider language as a part of reality,
as you say, and even forget the distinction between language and reality.
That would be true if you used language as a purely social tool, as they
probably do in some cultures around the world. But as it comes, western
thought (the one that gave birth to positivism, among other things), have
taught us to use it as an intellectual tool to discuss and investigate about
what life is, what the world is, as you do in metaphysics. I can't see how
could you doubt that. That doesn't mean that "language" itself is outside of
the domain of discourse, of course.
If you state that the gap between language and reality does not exist, that
this is a false duality, to that I agree in general. This means that your
reality *is* your language. (Like, Pirsig stated that Newton "created"
gravitation). But I also think that when you begin talking metaphysics, you
"pretend" not to believe this, or you're not in the game. Unless you think
that the purpose of metaphysics is that of "creating a better language",
where "better" is only a matter of value, and has no relation whatsoever
with "closer to the truth", because... there is no absolute truth "outside"
language. Agreed. Really, agreed. But can we really play this game? Are we
playing it? Is this the game of MOQ discussion? I think the situation is
tricky. False steps are very easy. Perhaps, we can weaken the rules of the
game and progress somehow within the fiction of language/reality dualism,
and then, when we are to sum up, add this fundamental piece again: remember
that we were just pretending to be approximating truth; we have always been
just building a better truth, where better is only defined by our immediate
perception of value and by *no other means*.
If you choose to play this weaker game, there are still many different
viewpoins from which to look at language. Seen from a silent God, language
is of course part of reality and dynamic and evolving and there's no way to
formalize it. Seen from the speaking metaphysic, language can do some things
and cannot do others, as regards describing reality (that same reality that
the silent God is watching, including language and all).
>IMO the mystic bridge is mystic only in a reality/language (SOMish)
>division. From a SOMish viewpoint, subject is separated from object,
>language is separated from reality, mind is separated from matter, so
>when the Quality event happens (the moment when subject and object are
>the same) the limited language uses the "mystic" notation to express
>the nature of the moment. But from a MOQish viewpoint, I'd say that we
>don't need any "mystic" notation.
Yes! (Or... maybe?) That is, the mystic bridge is not a concept out of
context. It describes the experience of a human being, conducted through his
life by a SOMish vision of reality, who escapes it and perceives reality
w/out rational
mediation. If you are saying that this seems a meaningful concept only if
you have a SOMish vision, I do not agree, if you are saying that it is an
experience that only occurs to beings with a SOMish vision, I agree. From a
MOQish point of view, we don't need a mystic notation; more precisely, in my
opinion, MOQ would simply cease being MOQ if it used it. But, I would like
to know more precisely what you mean by "notation".
> Quality, Excellence, Art. These are good terms. Art is the activity when
> the subject is not separated by the object. The real artist uses a
> technique as language, in order to express the reality as pure quality.
> The performing artist is not separated by the masterpiece, or it's not
> art. Many logical scientists would say that the artistic intuition is a
> mystic event.... but the artist will say he/she is simply an artist.
Art is of course an interesting issue. The artist expresses static quality.
Static quality is not "complete" quality. It has defeats. What is a
masterpiece for one person, another person might shake shoulders at and
mutter: "that's too naive". Engaging in a discussion of art would make this
message even longer than it's gonna be, but let me just suggest that perhaps
art is the perfect example to explain that my dualism between "discrete" and
"continuous" is "static" vs "dynamic" with worse words.
> Well, IMO unhappiness can be caused by a bad fitting in the world around
> you. For example, I would like to discuss of metaphysics all time, but
> of course I can't. I must attend to my job and be also part of the
> giant. And I've a family. And I must preserve my biological life. All
> these "musts" can be a source of happiness, or a source of unhappiness.
> The MOQ helps me a lot to understand that my intellectual self is only a
> part of me, and it lies upon a social, a biological and an inorganic
> self. If I want to reach the peace of mind, I must find a good balance
> of my four levels, and a similar fitting of my four levels of experience
> into the respective four levels of the world around me. A good way is
> to understand that I'm part of this world. To surpass any division
> between me and the other.
I have expressed an opinion on what I meant by unhappiness in the reply to
elephant. Possibly I am only speaking of a specific kind of unhappiness,
although it seems that eastern religions/philosophies (as well as several
western ones) think that this is the *only* kind of unhappiness that really
exists. Being unhappy because you can't speak MOQ all the time is a
delusion. There's no you separated from talking about MOQ except in your
rational mind. (That is too extreme a sentence, but that's the point).
Let me know your thoughts, too :)
All the best
--
Andrea Sosio
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
