JOHN:
At a fundamental level all language can be seen as carrying static value.
Most words only form from experiences of value. According to his logic, if
there was no value for me in a word, it would not become part of my
vocabulary. However some words seem clearly functional without value - the
word the will do as an example. The fills a grammatical role in language,
but
as a word it is empty of content and equally empty of value.
ROGER:
You just agreed its value is grammatical. Why is content the only judge of
value? This is a very materialist argument.
AVID:
I agree with Roger. The value of a word can be a part of the language theory
part in the SPQ.
As I suggested elsewhere a value of a word can be autonomous [value in the
language], easy to pronounce and remember, easy to use, to signify ['the' is
a good example]. Other sort of qualities [or value] can heteronomical to
the language, such as explanative power of a word etc. [what John referred
to as quality].
However language often masquerades as "transparent", as not relating to a
given metaphysics, as open.
This is part of the cultural immune system where language keeps the
information flow within the limits of a certain metaphysics as
"understandable".
Therefore in introducing a different metaphysics or in the case of mystical
experience the language connection of SOM becomes an obstacle.
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:11 BST