February 02, 2004 - 9:13 p.m.

.Language and Organisation
I copied the coherent sentences. The mumbo jumbo is 
mine.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.. =mould theory
!diff languages, not just different labels! its a whole diff world
Linguistic Relativity: Diff language, think differently 
'kaleidoscopic flux of impressions' cut up in limitless ways.
The Notion of Codability - language aids organis. + mem (snow, color)
linguistic determinism: our thinking is determined by language
(weak/strong)i believe there _is_ thought outside language
              un/preconscious->conscious = feeling=>thought

ok ok
Mould theories;
represent language as 'a mould in terms of which thought categories 
are cast'. Thought is forced through the language mould. language
limits thought. Words are not merely the 'dress' of thought. thought
so tied up in the word itself. 'I am', 'je suis' not same meaning.
(whorf says yes but eu lang actually v similar)Lang traslation v. 
difficult.
Even speaking/writing involves a translation (unverbialized thought
into language).Reading is; lang. -> unverbialized thought.

Cloak theories
represent the view that 'language is a cloak conforming to the
customary categories of thought of its speakers'. Language reflects
thought. The same thought can be expressed in a variety of ways.  
'The fact is, that even totally different languages are not 
untranslatable'Popper <- evasive. [semi]Translation always possible?

Moderate Whorfianism - yey!
    * the emphasis is on the potential for thinking to be 'influenced' 
rather than unavoidably 'determined' by language;
    * it is a two-way process, so that 'the kind of language we use' 
is also influenced by 'the way we see the world';
    * any influence is ascribed not to 'Language' as such or to one 
language compared with another, but to the use within a language of 
one variety rather than another (typically a sociolect - the language 
used primarily by members of a particular social group);
    * emphasis is given to the social context of language use rather 
than to purely linguistic considerations, such as the social pressure 
in particular contexts to use language in one way rather than another.
Some still favour the notion of language as a strait-jacket or prison, 
but there is a broad academic consensus favouring moderate 
Whorfianism.
'Any linguistic influence is now generally considered to be related 
not primarily to the formal systemic structures of a language (langue 
to use de Saussure's term) but to cultural conventions and individual 
styles of use (or parole).'  !!!woahwoahwoahwo how boring.  what about 
the idea of being _trapped_ within grammatical structures, and trapped 
by existing vocab. surely that cool idea, and the moderate Whorfian 
'there is thought outside language' idea are not mutually exclusive?

You're talking about the influence of 'conventions of usage', yes they 
'tend to support certain kinds of observations and restrict others' 
but why deny the limiting factor of the language structure itself?

"Do words _determine_ the shape of our thoughts? Well, it seems 
equally clear that that's nonsense..."

  Not 'determine'.. but 'strongly guide' I think. When thinking of   
  something complicated it helps to be able to (in our head) put into   
  words a step in the thought process. We can file it easily and move   
  on. like those long words in philosophy. they can sum up complex   
  ideas so they can be called up easily when needed.  If these words   
  help thought processes, then thinking would be hindered without   
  them. If something is more difficult to think about, one is more   
  likely to give up.
   HA yes it is 'determine'! without words our thoughts would be   
  significantly different. - that's 'determine' isnt it?

  'words determine the shape of our thoughts'

  naah words _alone_ do not determine our thoughts. There are other   
  things (pre-conscious/'feelings').damnit, its all about defining   
  what a 'thought' is.  can we class these pre-conscious impressions   
  as thought, or does thought only become so when expressed in a   
  logical manner (with language).
  WRONG there is not a clear division between pre-conscious sludge and 
  conscious worded logic. Pictures in our mind are conscious, and how  
  can you describe a vivid memory - expressed as pictures smells   
  feelings - as _pre_ conscious.

  AARGG it just goes to show, philosophy is based on defining words,   
  and making up some kind of artificial logic.I give up

"...and though it may and can be argued, it must be said most people 
don't bother to try."  


,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
.Seamus Heaney extracts:

where springs washed into
the shiny grass
                                                    
..cradled gun..          
                       
those mound-dwellers   
go waist-deep in mist         
to break the light ice               
at wells and dunghills.                   
                                     
..the warm thick slobber
Of frogspawn that grew like clotted water
                                                !
Then one hot day when fields were rank         oO)-.
With cowdung in the grass the angry frogs     /__  _
Invaded the flax-dam; I ducked through hedges __(  | 
To a coarse croaking that I had not heard      __| { 
Before. The air was thick with a bass chorus.  '  '--'
Right down the dam gross-bellied frogs were cocked
On sods; their loose necks pulsed like sails. Some hopped:
The slap and plop were obscene threats. Some sat
Poised like mud grenades, their blunt heads farting.
I sickened, turned, and ran. The great slime kings
Were gathered there for vengeance and I knew
That if I dipped my hand the spawn would clutch it.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
epistemology
n.
The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its 
presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

metaphysics
n.
   1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy
that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship
between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
   2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a
particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
   3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions
that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or 
experiment.
   4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite
reasoning.
[From pl. of Middle English methaphisik, from Medieval Latin
metaphysica, from Medieval Greek (ta) metaphusika, from Greek (Ta)
meta (ta) phusika, (the works) after the Physics, the title of 
Aristotle's treatise on first principles (so called because it 
followed his work on physics)  : meta, after; see meta- + phusika,
physics; see physics.]

ontology
On*tol"o*gy, n. [Gr. ? the things which exist (pl.neut. of ?, ?,
being, p. pr. of ? to be) + -logy: cf.F. ontologie.] That department
of the science of metaphysics which investigates and explains the
nature and essential properties and relations of all beings, as such,
or the principles and causes of being.

 
previous - next



combined companions
biscuit banana coffee
friendly mcvittie