sophie

leyline, would you then claim that cultural bias affects scientific data acquisition?

Perhaps you may be able to claim that some interpretations in certain sections of science may be limited to cultural bias, but what truth would there be in this claim?

Yes I agree we all have that cultural bias, but the truth you will find with a woman (assuming you are a man), or other aspects of society, even with yourself, if ever you become dissatisified with society, your truth would not be totally (100%) grounded in cultural bias else you people would all be like Midwich cuckoos. Note I am excluding myself from this interpretation.

Therefore it is unwise to claim cultural bias as the be all and end all of interpretating truth, private or not.

leyline

sophie

well i would not say that all experience is truth. Truth for me has to be written or memorised. It requires a symbolic language. That requires for me an obvious and necessary need for culture. Truth is entirely cultural in my opinion. Experience however is not, but nevertheless it can be.

"Perhaps you may be able to claim that some interpretations in certain sections of science may be limited to cultural bias, but what truth would there be in this claim?"

well the truth that is created by cultures that agree with me. For me the whole of science is quite obviously a cultural relationship to reality. Variation of interpretations within science neither confirm or deny that way of looking at it. Variation of interpretation exists in some religion and not in ohers. Non variation occurs within mathematics. Both are cultural relationships.

"Therefore it is unwise to claim cultural bias as the be all and end all of interpretating truth, private or not."

well as to whether who is the wisest who can tell? Also i do not see culture as interpreting truth, but creating it through relationship with reality born of agreement between those who accept that cultural perspective.

When we consider ourselves at odds with society and have our own private truths, then i simply interpret this as someone who is possibly at the forefront of their culture, not necessarily outside it. Either that or they are indeed moving outside the culture and possibly into a personal dead end. That's life. How can you safeguard against that except by never even risking to think outside the box by pushing the boundaries that you inherit?

spacer1

Leyline:

In response to my saying, "I don't see how language could prevent you from doing anything you could otherwise normally do (limiting your freedom)", you replied:
Really?
Okay, but it isn't relevant to what I said (and especially not relevant to the notion of freedom that you introduced), as you confirm in your next sentence:
Yes, and again, I can't see the relevance to freedom.
I agree that the rules of a sonnet may be "a means of freely using a cultural form," but I don't see how it's a "restriction," and therefore, still see no relationship to the concept of freedom. If you don't want to use the form of a sonnet, then don't. Use 13 lines, or 15. Nobody is going to force you to write a sonnet, and if they do, it will be this physical threat that is limiting your freedom, not the 14-line form of verse.

Me: "What I am interpreting you as saying here is that language is too general to be able to relate all the specifics of a given experience and so does not really get at the whole Truth."

You: I don't see how the concept of "tree" could be any more general. How could any current concept be made more general?
If you wish to communicate emotion without using mathematics, then don't use mathematics. Nobody is going to force you to.

Me: "the very fact that we share a language and can communicate our experiences, must suggest that our (every human being's) experiences of the world are extremely similar."
You: I don't see how other individuals or cultures could have a different interpretation of, or relationship to, hunger or sight. The need for food and the function of the eyes would be the same for every human being, regardless of environment.
While eskimos may have some large number of words for "snow" while we only have one, can be explained by the fact that we adapt to our environments in order to survive. This underlying similarity across the species (and all life), combined with our virtually identical physiological makeup, suggests that our bodies function in the same way and will generally react to our given environments in the same way, despite what those environments may be. The differences in language across cultures, therefore, is merely a consequence of these differing environments. Our individual experiences of reality need not be effected by such differences. As I stated in my last post, "our attempts to communicate such experiences are where the problems [in attaining truth] arise." Just because eskimos have many words for snow while we have only one does not mean we don't both experience snow as the same substance. It is merely a more relevant substance to the eskimos' survival.

spacer1

Sophie:
I agree with John Page's response.

leyline

ok spacer

well we will just have to agree to disagree. i can make sense of what you have written but it did surprise me very much that you interpreted my writing in that way. It feels like a mountain between us. We are looking at life so differently that we are talking at cross purposes, and that very much includes the way we are using the same language. Such as the different contextx for freedom and restriction. We are quite obviously way off each others values here.

Such is life. Viva la difference!

sophie

John Page,

John you are writing for writing sake, the following makes no sense.

John : My interpretation is not whether the private language is shared, but whether we're consciously aware of it.
Me : In the sense of private language and understanding, being conscious of what one understands is indeed implicit in understanding. Understanding still seems a conscious experience. If you try to argue one understands things un-consciously, then I would indeed ask how is this possible.

John : There seems no obligation upon the "public language" to discuss shared understanding - it could be like ships passing in the night - although it could be said that is its purpose/function.
Me; You are the one who claims agreement to be intrinsic to truth. How can you make this claim and then blurt out no obligation necessary.

John : On the other hand, private language is just something we haven't learned anough about or we're not sufficiently aware of it. Arguably its still language and thus would have the same shared understanding purpose/function as any other language, private, public or otherwise.
Me; How on earth can you make such a claim, concerning shared understanding after reducing private language to the rubble of language. You are making leaps across boundries which do not exist.

John : P.S. Maybe "private language underlies one's own understanding...."
Me; Sensibly how in the name of heavens can a private language construe itself without understanding. At most the two would be simultaneous, else as you claim, the understanding within private language would exist before the real understanding of what private language expresses.

Language is an expression of something.

This whole post reeks of conflict, inconsistency and bad mental management.

sophie

spacer1,

you should read my reply to John Page, since you wholeheartedly agreed with him. Perhaps it would be wiser to answer for yourself.

spacer1

Sophie:

John : My interpretation is not whether the private language is shared, but whether we're consciously aware of it.
You : In the sense of private language and understanding, being conscious of what one understands is indeed implicit in understanding. Understanding still seems a conscious experience. If you try to argue one understands things un-consciously, then I would indeed ask how is this possible.
Me: You seem to assume that we consciously control understanding. We may have the intention of attempting to understand, but we do not make the choice of "I am going to understand this NOW," and from then on we do understand. Understanding is a product of thought that we may intend to occur, but cannot control. We may end up not understanding, despite our attempts. Therefore, since we cannot understand at will, it must occur subconsciously. It may be a conscious experience, but it is not under conscious control.

John : There seems no obligation upon the "public language" to discuss shared understanding - it could be like ships passing in the night - although it could be said that is its purpose/function.
You: You are the one who claims agreement to be intrinsic to truth. How can you make this claim and then blurt out no obligation necessary.
Me: I think John is making the point Wittgenstein highlighted in his Tractatus (4.121), that, "What finds its reflection in language, language cannot represent. What expresses itself in language, we cannot express by means of language." A proposition asserts something and we either understand it or not. We do not need to write more propositions explaining what the first proposition means, for it should show what it means by itself. Whether you understand it or not is up to you (and regardless of whether you agree to these comments or not, I believe you will understand them).

John : On the other hand, private language is just something we haven't learned anough about or we're not sufficiently aware of it. Arguably its still language and thus would have the same shared understanding purpose/function as any other language, private, public or otherwise.
You: How on earth can you make such a claim, concerning shared understanding after reducing private language to the rubble of language. You are making leaps across boundries which do not exist.
Me: I don't really understand what your complaint is here, so I'll go off on my own tangent. I was hesitant to agree that a private language even exists. However, I have a vague idea of some sort of communication between the conscious mind and the subconscious mind (or the central nervous system, or our genes, or some such), that allows us to have conscious understanding. I believe this synonymous use of "private language" and "understanding" (or the behind-the-scenes mental activity that brings about understanding) has been adopted previously in this discussion by John and possibly others, and I find no problem with it.

John : P.S. Maybe "private language underlies one's own understanding...."
You: Sensibly how in the name of heavens can a private language construe itself without understanding. At most the two would be simultaneous, else as you claim, the understanding within private language would exist before the real understanding of what private language expresses.
Me: I'm not too sure I understand you here, but I sense the best response would be to reinforce the idea that you cannot understand by consciously willing yourself to.

spacer1

Leyline,

I don't believe we are talking at cross-purposes. I just think the concept of freedom is irrelevant to the discussion.

John Page

That we can consciously experience our understanding does not necessitate consciousness for understanding to occur. I think consciousness is realizing that you understand something.
Public language could be used just, for example, stating an opinion. I guess you could respond that the "shared understanding" that results is the understanding of the opinion of the protaganist. I would admit this possibility but point out that the shared understanding need not result, even if it was the intent that shared understanding would be generated. I'm trying to nix private language as an invention to cover up for our lack of knowledge about how we think. I mean, am I to believe "private language" is language or not?
Chinese language exists even though I don't understand it - wny not the same for the so-called "private language"? As to your second point, on private language and understanding, I think this comes back to (the issue at the start of this post) whether we consciously or sub-consciously understand events at the private language level.
Could I suggest "Language is an intentional expression of something."?
Yes, I don't think you've thought it through.

Cheers, John