Re: LS Denis is searching for Quality and the Net is the new Agora

From: Denis Poisson (Denis.Poisson@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Wed Sep 22 1999 - 00:08:59 BST


Hi Magnus and Squad,

Magnus has critiziced my assertion that the recursive function of the
Intellect (the function described in the analogy of the map which
includes the map) is really a function of Language. In doing so, he
destroys my idea that words are primary Intellectual static patterns. I
believe that this springs from a misunderstanding of Language. Let me
explain how I see Language :

Magnus Berg wrote:
> I'm not convinced. A language is nothing without intellectual patterns,
> except maybe inorganic patterns. The egyptian hieroglyphs was just carvings
> on papyrus before we knew the meaning of them, that is, before we knew which
> intellectual patterns they represented.
>

Magnus, I believe you see Language as a set of grammatical rules plus a
lexicon. Wrong. It is a social behaviour which carries intellectual
patterns. A Dynamic process. Any mapping of it isn't Language but a
model of it. Just as the Bohr-Rutherford model of an atom isn't an atom
but a model. The papyrus you mention isn't language but a model of a
speech.
The intellectual patterns YOU talk about are Values, which cannot be
defined. What else is an intellectual pattern without an inorganic
pattern (sound, sign) to support it ? An Idea ? Can you express it
without words ? Can you think of it without words ? Would you even be
able to think at all without words ?

Words are ALL we can talk about. ('scuse for this Descartes quote... or
Hobbes, I'm not sure)

When we found the hieroglyphs, we knew they were signs, the
representation of words, but we had lost the relationship between them
and OUR OWN WORDS.

We couldn't translate.

Once the Stone of Rosette was found, we had a TRANSLATION. The
relationship was re-established and we could translate the meaning of
the text in OUR OWN LANGUAGE. Our own values. But we haven't discovered
the language AS IT WAS THEN.

No one can truly say "I speak ancient Egyptian". That's ludicrous.

I've done a lot of translation work and I can tell you something : when
you translate you substract and add A LOT of meaning, whether you want
or not. The trick is getting it as close as you can, but you never get
it perfect (except for really simple assertions, like "the cat ate the
mouse").

A language is more than a lexicon and rules, it is a whole way of
perceiving and dividing the world. It says a lot about what a human
society values.

Inuits have 15 words for "snow", Japanese don't distinguish "sea" from
"ocean", Hopi indians have the same word for "green" and "yellow". You
distinguish between a bush and a tree, but do you think Inuits do ?
"Shallow" doesn't exist in french. "Effleurer" (touching ever so
lightly, like a caress) doesn't exist in english. They can be
translated, but the meaning isn't whole in the target language like it
is in the source language.

> On the other hand, intellectual patterns *must* have a language to sustain
> itself. Otherwise it would effectively disappear. It would seem they are
> inseparable but it's only because of the level dependency and I think it's
> important to try.

Those intellectual patterns (in your interpretation) being Value, being
Quality, wouldn't disappear (Quality wouldn't disappear in we weren't
there, that's solipsism).
Only the static patterns (the words) would disappear. And so would
Intellect.

Since Intellect grows out of Language, the distinction IS important, but
so is the relationship between them. The problem is that you try to
separate the static patterns (words) from their value. That's insane. A
word is : sign + meaning, or it isn't a word. Christ, it's not even a
sign !

Writing is just an alternate support (an alternate inorganic pattern)
for words, but the distinction is that it is a complex static pattern
WITHOUT PLACE FOR DYNAMIC QUALITY. The analogy has its limits : a man
can change his mind and reformulate his ideas, a text cannot.
The same goes for other alternate supports for meaning : plans,
drawings, models, equations. They can be described by language but the
reverse isn't true. So Language is primary but isn't the whole
Intellectual level.

> The definition above doesn't help much in that respect.

The first part of it does (see my first post this month, the distinction
between phonems and words). The important thing is that without words
(in the first stages) there was no INTELLECTUAL value. Words were the
first intellectual values. Or more precisely, the first static latch of
Intellectual Dynamic Quality. Quality was still at large, but a new
avatar of it was born.

> My definition of language goes something like:
>
> A set of mappings between an intellectual pattern and another pattern, (possibly
> also intellectual).
>

By your definition, drawings, plans and maps are Language. It is when
Intellectual patterns can describe all other Intellectual patterns that
we really have something that can be called Language.

The metalinguistic function is a vital part of Language's definition.

It is strange to think that meaning can never be truly grasped, but
think about this : if you want to grasp "meaning", you have to use other
words. The meaning of those words can also be explained with words. And
again. And again. Until you come full circle, or end up saying : "Come
on ! Don't you KNOW it ? Do I REALLY have to explain this to you ?".
(Gosh ! What else am I doing in this forum ?!)

"And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good -- Need we ask anyone
to tell us those things ?"

That's it : Value. Values in a pattern.

> This way, a usual language like english, is a set of mappings between intellectual
> patterns and mostly other types of patterns. On the other hand, a grammar is a
> set of mappings between intellectual patterns and other intellectual patterns,
> (the usual language).
>
> Think about it, I doubt the Greek language developed much during the birth
> of SOM, only the use of the existing language. The intellectual patterns using
> the language evolved, the language probably also changed, but only to be able
> to discuss the intellectual progress.
>

Still, words like Object, Subject, objective, metaphysics, Truth,
substance, forms etc. were either created or redefined (given a new
intellectual pattern of value) in this time. Which supports my claims :
Intellect used the Dynamic metalinguistic function of Language to
promotes its growth.

Look at Aritotle's redefinition of rhetoric. Are you going to tell me
Aritotle didn't use Language but Intellect to do this (remember,
Language *isn't* Lexicon + Grammar) ? Did he use both then ? What is the
difference ?
What is this Intellect with a recursive function all its own that can
redefine Intellectual patterns ? How does this work at the fundamental
level of Intellect ?

The relationship between a sound and a meaning is primary. When you
define a word, you just establish new relationships between this word
and the rest of the lexicon. You rearrange the pieces of your
Intellectual puzzle. You rearrange the static patterns of value.

So I'll summarize :
The ACTIVITY of Language is the Intellectual Dynamic Reality, [many]
metaphysics is the Static end-product, Q-Intellect is the reunification
of the two.

The Intellectual level isn't more static than any other. In fact, it's
more Dynamic than any other.

Be good

Denis

PS [to the LS moderator] : this post has NOTHING (or so little) to do
with the Greeks or SOM. I'm fighting a metaphysical battle at the end of
each of my arguments here. But unless I'm allowed to defend my view of
Language, the rest of my posts are trash. So please let this post go
through. Thanks.

PPS : I feel completely drained after writing this post, and somewhat
cheerless, too. Fighting a metaphysical battle is tiring I guess. I
thought this would be easy and short but when you go to the center of
the Intellect, all you see is a Snake biting its tail. This is really
degenerate behaviour, and we do it all the time. Defining stuff, then
explaining the definition and then explaining THAT... Beurk... Sorry if
this is my last post this month but the babe will have to go its own way
now. Make it or die, pal.

MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:52 GMT