From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 14 2005 - 10:10:32 BST
Mark, and Scott,
OH well - back to the drawing board with LoCI - with the sq-DQ "scale"
I had incorrectly picked-up on something Mark seemed to have deduced
from Scott.
Mark, responses snipped & inserted ...
> My point was to highlight your implicit supposition
> that ideas (language) have ontological primacy over
> values.
[IG] - I appreciate that, and I didn't imply that. Quite the reverse,
as you do. I was simply noting that when we communicate (read, write,
debate) don't forget that we are nevertheless using language. Not
meant to be a big deal in itself - but it does lead to confusion in
some debates where the patterns lie. In your example ... there may
well be patterns of value immediately in the aesthetic of the
expression of the language itself, but we're generally trying to
convey / debate about the "things" being expressed. We may well be
talking about pre-intellectual / non-conceptual things, but we can't
help but intellectualise them if we share communications about them.
As I say - no big deal, not intended for debate in itself, just
something to bear in mind.
> Mark:
> By pre-intellectual concepts do you mean,
> 'Postulations by intuition'?
[IG] - OK sloppy, I own up. Concepts (!) - actually I probably should
have used the word "values". I just meant immediately experineced
things. (Remember for me any kind of conceptualisation is
intellectual.)
> Mark:
> This is very much a problem for me ....
[IG] - Good, that was my point. ie this is the main point at debate.
We agree some clarification is needed here, that's all I said. The
fact you go on to expand your own understanding confirms my point,
whether I agree with your explanation or not.
> Mark:
> I see. I think I've indeed missed what you are after.
> We hit the 'discrete levels' issue: any given level is
> not an extension of preceding levels. That's the key
> to your answer i think; social language expresses
> social patterns, intellectual language expresses
> intellectual patterns. Social patterns, such as
> doffing your hat, can be expressed as a narrative or
> within a logical argument.
[IG] - OK - you've got my point. Though I doubt it's as simple as
"social language expresses social patterns". One extreme view could be
that all language is social, even if you carve "The Poll Tax Is Evil"
in stone, expressing the intellectual in the physical, that language
is still social - shared by evolved convention between groups of
people. This is still just my caveat about the place of language in
all this. Nothing more.
> Mark:
> The poll tax is not a young pattern. It had been
> introduced many time at various stages of English
> political history, and each time it was a failure
[IG] - I don't do politics on MD. All I would say again is, you are
talking about its "introduction". Sounds dynamic to me :-)
> Mark:
> I don't hold much with this LoCI stuff myself.
[IG] - Never said I did either. I was just speculating on a
(synthetic) interpretation you might agree with, (you do go on to
suggest it may be "helpful") but I needn't have bothered since it
misrepresented what Scott intended anyway.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 11:16:59 BST