LS Re: Language


Samuel Palmer (spalmer@fundy.ca)
Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:14:37 +0100


> Hi,
>
> Samuel Palmer wrote:
>
> > With respect to the questions about everything/nothing, this seems
> > to be troublesome mostly because of the limitations of our language.
> > The MoQ suggests that the universe itself is founded on value.
>
> Has anyone suggested yet that what is needed is an entirely new language? That is,
> a language will all of the flexibility of a natural language, but none of its
> philosophical assumptions (replacing them with MoQ style constructs) ?
>
> James.
>
>
     I don't know if we can blame our misunderstandings on language.
It's how you use it. Certainly language itself has limitations because
of its linear quality. That's why we seem to communicate more
effectively face to face, where ideas can be accidentally presented
nonverbally through the hands and eyes in a non-linear pattern.
     I guess that's what makes the mark of a good writer. We wouldn't
all be here if Pirsig didn't somehow make a remarkable impression with
his use of language.

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST