transcending language?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » transcending language? » transcending language?

transcending language?
A messy heap of questions

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

transcending language?

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 254

Posted 08/24/08 - 03:38 PM:	#21
shenyue wrote: but I have imho experienced the inexpressible several times in my life. Cheers Maybe that's because you lack the words to express it...
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 588

Posted 08/24/08 - 04:13 PM:	#22
Kelby wrote: shenyue wrote: but I have imho experienced the inexpressible several times in my life. Cheers Maybe that's because you lack the words to express it... OH Burn!!!!!!!!
Future Tense Passed Relief the Escapist wrote: Bullshit, self-deception, self-aggrandizement. Explains everything, really...

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 08/24/08 - 11:33 PM:	#23
unenlightened wrote: Banno wrote: We build from within the framework, but we can build in any direction, and add any features we discover that we need. Language only places limits on our thought or behaviour if we are lazy. There is a limitation that we can only build a model; we cannot actually live in the building. It should be obvious, but one sometimes forgets. Care is needed here. You might have to fill this in, for me to agree. What sort of model? For example, we distinguish between Sydney the city and "Sydney" the name. But nevertheless, when one talks about Sydney, one is talking about the city, not the word, nor some model of the city.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 08/25/08 - 12:15 AM:	#24
A verbal model, a conceptual model, a thought model, an analogical model. A model 'framework' that we 'build in any direction'. Our thoughts are limited to being thoughts, ideas, divisions of the world into this and not that; but this only happens in our thoughts and our talk. No amount of language will quench your thirst, though if you ask nicely, someone might give you a drink. Language is a map, not a territory, and maps are limited, and need to be to be any use.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 08/25/08 - 03:29 AM:	#25
unenlightened wrote: A verbal model, a conceptual model, a thought model, an analogical model. These are not the same thing, are they? unenlightened wrote: A model 'framework' that we 'build in any direction'. (my bolding) What is done by inserting the word "model" here? A model of what? I didn't want to talk about a model of the framework here, but the framework itself. unenlightened wrote: Our thoughts are limited to being thoughts, ideas, divisions of the world into this and not that; Again, what is the limit here? We commonly bring our thoughts to fruition, make it happen, act upon the world. We might be mistaken about how the world is, or decide we were wrong, or change the world to the way it should be. So what could it mean to say thoughts are limited to being thoughts? unenlightened wrote: No amount of language will quench your thirst, though if you ask nicely, someone might give you a drink. Sure. But that does seem a strange thing to describe as a limitation. Like saying a train is limited because you can't write with it. unenlightened wrote: Language is a map, not a territory, and maps are limited, and need to be to be any use. Again, what is the limit here? It seems to me that describing language as a map is itself far too limited. As if language consisted only of nouns and verbs: "See John run. Run, John, run". Language is far more than just a map. Edited by Banno on 08/25/08 - 03:43 AM
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 08/25/08 - 12:39 PM:	#26
Banno wrote: What is done by inserting the word "model" here? A model of what? I didn't want to talk about a model of the framework here, but the framework itself. Framework itself? What framework? Its an analogy , no? There is no framework, thats just a way of talking. Banno wrote: Again, what is the limit here? It seems to me that describing language as a map is itself far too limited. As if language consisted only of nouns and verbs: "See John run. Run, John, run". Language is far more than just a map. Well its another analogy, and I agree it is limited, but to describe language as an indefinitely extendible framework is also limited; Any description of anything is limited and incomplete - that is my point. Even a limited thing like language is 'far more' than any description we can give of it.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 08/25/08 - 02:38 PM:	#27
unenlightened wrote: ...Any description of anything is limited and incomplete - that is my point.. My point is that langauge is used to do more than just describe.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 08/25/08 - 04:43 PM:	#28
Banno wrote: unenlightened wrote: ...Any description of anything is limited and incomplete - that is my point.. My point is that langauge is used to do more than just describe. Point taken. It can be used for many things, but not anything at all. In that case I was using it to describe itself, as you were doing earlier. Banno wrote: unenlightened wrote: No amount of language will quench your thirst, though if you ask nicely, someone might give you a drink. Sure. But that does seem a strange thing to describe as a limitation. Like saying a train is limited because you can't write with it. Are you saying that a train is unlimited? That would require an odd response.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

shenyue
(post)modern dervish

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 12

Posted 08/26/08 - 05:48 AM:	#29
Kelby wrote: shenyue wrote: but I have imho experienced the inexpressible several times in my life. Cheers Maybe that's because you lack the words to express it... Perhaps you're right. My ability to articulate pales in comparison to my openness to perceive experiences outside my day-to-day feelers.... Without getting defensive, let me say this Kelby. For me expressing the inexpressible has to be about communicating a fleeting vision that refuses to be defined. Poets sometimes attain this, a look into a loved one's eyes can also. And even more difficult, one 'presents' words in a constellation that begin with the defined words but the overall form dissolves them, sublates them if you will, to allow the reader to see a glimpse of the Truth. If I capture your quip in that fashion, yes you're right. I lack the ability, but it has little to do with words. Words alone cannot touch what I'm alluding to. Cheers.
Take some workable combination of Lao Zi, Gibran, Plato, and Benjamin, and one might actually grasp toward a unified theory.

shenyue
(post)modern dervish

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 12

Posted 08/26/08 - 05:58 AM:	#30
To Banno and Unenlightened, Excuse me for jumping in, but does the conversation change at all if we consider language analogous to building blocks in creating a world, akin to christian theology? Perhaps you two will humor me and consider the 'word' and subsequent 'words' actually create and recreate our very existential world. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Edited by shenyue on 08/26/08 - 07:06 AM
Take some workable combination of Lao Zi, Gibran, Plato, and Benjamin, and one might actually grasp toward a unified theory.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.