Ierrellus

Instead of blaming language for subject/object antinomies, should we not first consider whether or not sources of subject and object provide any basis of agreement?

Ierrellus

Blake

I confess I'm unsure what you mean. Could you rephrase your question for my benefit, particularly the second half?

Blake

Gurdur

If they didn't, there would be no such thing as linguistic universals. There are.

Ierrellus

Bill:

The subject/object controversy has to do with any person's abilty to see beyond singular survival issues the prospect of survival of an ecologically constructed biosphere. In other words, the relationship between thou and that constitutes a moral mandate.

Those who insist on personal bifurcation of this and that do so mainly from hubristic notions of singular superiority. The points of complementation must be stated.

Ierrellus

Gurdur

The philosophical and theological strand you want is called
Conciliarism.

See also E.O. Wilson's book on the subject.

Mind you, after all of that, is anyone going to discuss linguistic universals ?
*sigh*
probably not

Metacrock

Not if I can help it Gurdur! I think the original point he' making is wrong, not Wilson, the guy on this thread. Heidegger for example, didn't think that subject/object dicothomy was a problme merely because he was prideful. There is such a dichotomy and it can't help but be a problem. The attempts to prtend that ojbectivity resolves the problem only make it worse.

Wasn't this an issue in our debate? BTW I'm sorry I bugged out on you in that. I had to get busy on that dissertatin and other personal things came up. Hope things are well with you.

Gurdur

An interesting point. Personally, I like E.O. Wilson, but hey.
I don't know of specific theologians dealing with Conciliarism, but I assume an internet search might get some useful information; ditto with specific philosophers apart from Wilson, Steven Jay Gould, and others, including the Gaia crowd.

I don't think so. Your own connection comes from a more subtle conflation, one that simply doesn't answer the problems faced in the OP here, either.

No worries. How about I add a bit more to that formal thread in a week or so, then email you, and you can reply when you like ? OK ?

___________

BTW, the linguistic universals contradict the hard-line philosophical/ideological/mystic direction on this one.

*sigh*
Anyone for ling. uni's ? No ?
*sigh*

James Still

Ok, I'll bump this up and keep it alive. It seems to me that no one disagrees that there are linguistic universals. The disagreement is over their ontology. Are they the result of innate "hard-wiring" in the brain, some sort of meta-language out of which all languages derive their particular nouns? Or are they instead the result of the living of life within a particular culture? I lean toward the latter answer but I am not as familiar with Chomsky as I should be to have much confidence in my position.

Gurdur

IN essence, my point was aimed at Ierrellus; the hard-liner mystic philosophy he's appealing to would wipe out subject/object distinctions with the stroke of a linguistic coup-de-état, a coup doomed (IMHO) to absolute failure since:

The broad range of human languages, and reconstructed older languages, shows a subject/object distinction (explicit or implicit) that goes way beyond culture; no matter what the culture, no matter what the time frame, humans always seem to think in subject/object terms - the only times when humans don't do this is in early infancy (a notoriously non-grammatical period), and in trance states induced by drugs, epilepsy or intensive meditation - states in which humans are notoriously and consistently incapable of much action and often of coherent speech.

Or, IOW, it's hard-wired beyond doubt; possibly reality is such that this is the only way that humans can process reality.

BTW, James Still, I must apologise to you for not yet having added to your own thread, "My thoughts lately", a deeply fascinating thread for me (thanks !).
I will do so soon.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

James Still

I think you're spot on here. Looking at how we speak about things in our language tells us how we view reality.

I certainly look forward to any contributions you see fit to make. We've all raised some difficult questions in that thread and I welcome a fresh perspective.