Why on earth would you think, even using your own analysis, that words not
acted on are less significant than deeds; that the work building a building
across the way is LESS significant than you class room lecture? ellen
starbird
>Ricardo writes notes that I wrote > that depending on one's definitions one
>may separate
>thought and language. That's true, but some definitions are closer to the
>truth than others. Even if we define thinking per se as something that
>"occurs within an individual's brain" (a very liberal view, I might add)
>such private thinking still requires the use of language. <
>
>What's a different, and more accurate, definition of thinking than the one
>I provided? What's a non-liberal definition of thinking? Why was my
>(admittedly incomplete) definition of thinking liberal? do we reject all
>things liberal?
>
>> Just try thinking without words. Chess too involves language; how can you
>play (think) without knowing the rules (words, symbols) of chess?<
>
>This misses the point. Thinking -- including that involved with
>chess-playing -- definitely _uses_ words, so that thinking _without_ words
>is probably impossible. But that doesn't mean that language is the only
>tool that thinking uses, which would make thinking and language well-nigh
>identical. In fact, I bet that if one doesn't use language to define the
>spatial relationships between the pieces on the chessboard, it makes it
>easier to play chess. ("the white King is at Queen Knight's third, there's
>a friendly pawn immediately past it, etc., etc.)
>
>In addition to words, our minds use intuition, spacial vision, etc. Just
>as, according to Howard Gardner, there are 8 kinds of intelligence, the
>mind is multi-dimensional. It can't be reduced to one dimension, such as
>language.
>
>> No words can be expressed without thinking; all words carry meaning. It
>is just that some people think little when they talk. <
>
>I agree. But there's more going on that simply thinking.
>
>>I agree that ideas which are not put into action have little effect on
>history. But this does not mean that you can separate actions from words;
>it simply means that some ideas are put into actions whereas others are not. <
>
>I agree with this.
>
>In addition, a clarifying note: the expression of words (on paper or in
>speech or electronically) is a kind of action (social practice). There are,
>however, some types of action that are more important in terms of their
>impact on the historical process than others. My lecturing in the
>classroom, for example, is less important than the work being done outside
>my office window (at this moment) digging the foundation for a new building.
>
>in pen-l solidarity,
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html
>Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
>7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
>310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
>"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
>and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
