phaedrus

How exactly are we blaming language for the dichotomy? If there is no language, does the bifurcation vanish?
Without language as a tool of communication, will be ever able to communicate, share, discuss and agree ? (Or maybe we can use ESP or other non-local modes of communication? )

Now regarding the sources need a clarfication - why are we trying to consider whether the sources "provide" a basis for agreement? Are the "sources" and "subject/object" different entities? If there is a noumenal cause for everything, why "think" about it at all?

JP

phaedrus

Gur

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

I dont think anyone is denying the dichotomy within language, if i am not wrong the question posed is trying to step out of the linguistic boundaries and into the "experience" part of it. What exactly do you mean by this particular goes "beyond culture" ?

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

So "coherent speech" is essential for subject/object distinction? Wonder why you clubbed "meditation" with the above (granted chaps who are meditating dont speak, but "being incapable" ???)

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

You mean to say in your opinion, there is NO other way one can view reality except in subject/object terms ??

JP

Metacrock

MEta =>OK sure man!

___________

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

*sigh*
Anyone for ling. uni's ? No ?
*sigh*[/QB][/QUOTE]

MEta=>ahahaahhahahahahahahahah!

philechat

The territorial traits prediposed in human mind? Human beings, in a desperate attempt to preserve their autonomy and control in the face of the Other, often objectify the Other to avoid being first objectified. Anything new or incomprehensible is treated with fear or exaggerated reverence, and hence a distance is kept to prevent intrusion.

WHen the Other were assessed to be harmless, they turned the Other into Us, and become one of the "subjects" in a person's life. In this case the Other is no longer perceived to be a threat to one's cherished control/identity/way of life.

When we look at the object or other people, weren't we always looking from "our" perspectives? Such a look already contained judgements toward the Other, rendering the Other incomplete and distorted. "Hell is other people" as it stands. We also found ourselves incomplete when we were in the sight of the Other (especially those who differ from us).

Ierrellus

Blaming the subject/object nature of language for problems in philosophy as stated above provides the beginning of Nietzche's BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL.
Wittsgenstein, as quoted in Ian Gynn's AN ANATOMY OF THOUGHT, states that "philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."

Ierrellus, point 1.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

These short compressed messages are not to fan the flame, but are all my cheapie p.c. will allow before I am booted off.

A good case can be made for correlation between activities of charged particles on the atomic level and continuation of attraction/repulsion as a model for adaptational possibilites in the evolution of the human organism. It is this type of reductionism that rankles those who hold on to ideas of humans as basically different from animals and somehow special in kind, not in degree
.

Point 2.

The notion of a biosphere does not have to entail, Gaia, uni, or any mystical beliefs of that sort. A biosphere is merely an environment in which life forms are possible (as we know of them).

Point 3.

Epilogue:
This is a serious discussion. Please do me no favors by posting just to keep this thread alive.
And please use E-mail or IMs for Ma Bell asides.

Ierrellus

Gurdur

No.
A major part of human communication - often said to be about 90%, but never strictly quantified - is in fact so-called non-verbal communication, more properly called non-grammatical communication.

Language is grammar is language.
Language is a small sub-set of communication.

I prefer "Gurdur", since it is my fond hope that the second syllable adds a note of distinction.

There is a question of whether particular constructions are limited to one particular language, or group of languages, or are shared by all human languages.

No; the two go together - they have at the end a common cause, if you like.

Since in certain ecstatic states the subject/object dichotomy is felt to disappear - though in fact it can be shown not to have.
In such states, attained by whatever routes, people are mostly incapable of either coherent complex action or language.

Nope.
But first one must have the subject/object difference before one can envisage different ways, with the exceptions of infancy and certain mental states outlined above.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Gurdur

Quite frankly, all this seems to me only to be a misapplied metaphor run riot, without any concrete meaning at all.
Care to expand ?
Quite true, but you seem to have misunderstood my points quite badly, and you haven't addressed them at all.

I also draw your attention to the fact that you are pushing a prescriptivist view, with an ideological philosophical aim.

How about you do me the courtesy of actually addressing my contributions here rather than indulging in this kind of maladroit slapping ?

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Ender

The subject/object dichotomy that divides the phenomenological world is entirely a western or a european social construct, a linguistic practice, a leftover dinosaur from Structuralism that has its roots in Descartes- where the object is a measurable quantity while the unquantifiable subjective world contains or involves the mind, ego, the self and other various aesthetics.

Nietzsche declares that the subject/object dichotomy is false in the 13th section of the Genealogy of Morals: "There is no 'being' behind doing, effecting, becoming; the doer is merely a fiction added to the deed -- the deed is everything."

<a href="http://www.selfpsychology.org/neutrality/_neutrality/0000004b.htm" target="_blank">Postmodernism on the subject/object dichotomy</a>

Gurdur

Yes, yes, yes, no doubt a fine declaration, but I happen to greatly disagree on all points - for the reasons outlined above.

Care to expand on where you see errors in my reasoning ?