I think it is a failure to share your set of beliefs
What you are expounding, apart from being fairly vague, is, to many of us,
metaphysical claptrap.
You are welcome to believe it. I suspect that we all have some metaphysical
claptrap in our make up; but it is a little odd when asserting something
without evidence or real argument to say that those who fail to agree do not
have a good grasp of your faith. Perhaps they have a better grasp than you
of what is tangible and / or deducible and what is - seemingly -
neo-platonism maché
L
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Jab" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 13 February 2001 14:55
Subject: Re: FW: statement
| I must say that you fail to have a good grasp on what the logical grammar
of
| language means. You should refer to my second response to cris. Logical
| grammar is indifferent to which language. It is the foundation
| "intelligence" (so to speak). The logical grammar of language is the
| "reflection" or mirror that displays the order of affairs within events
(the
| world) in language. It is indiscriminate and not subject to whims or even
| intention, therefore it is not something received from history but it is
| regardless of history.
|
| On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:23:40 -0500, Poetryetc provides a venue for a
| dialogue relating to poetry and poetics wrote:
|
| > Useage in a language develops--and shifts--on the basis of its use.
| Grammar
| > isn't general in that sense (i.e., the "philosophical nature of
| language"),
| > but rather specific a A language or language group. Germanic and
Romance
| > languages, for example, handle gender differently, and the logic of
those
| > grammatical developments can be traced to the history of the languages
| > themselves, including the politics at play among the various tribes and
| > burgeoning nations whose relationships shaped and were shaped by their
| > languages. If "thought" and the "grammar" proceeding from it and
feeding
| > back into it were received whole and intact, as you seem to think, it
| would
| > have had to happen three times in the case of English alone ("o gawd,"
as
| > cris cheek says!).
| >
| > Candice
| >
| >
| > ----------
| > > We are talking at cross-purposes here. My statements were referring
| more to
| > > philosophical nature of language. How it stands in itself, not how it
| used.
| > > There is a big difference. The use of language, that is, the
intention
| of
| > > the user, acquires all sorts of ends and means but this has nothing
to
| do
| > > with the logical grammar of language as it is. It is similar to the
| > > different uses one can get out of a baseball. One can play baseball
| with it
| > > or one can throw it at someone.
| > >
| > >
| > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:59:20 -0500, John Kinsella
| <[log in to unmask]>
| > > wrote:
| > >
| > >> language is made by the use of language, therefore, if the use is
| > >> political then so is the language...
| > >>
| > >> best,
| > >> jk
| > >
|
|
|
|
|
| _______________________________________________________
| Send a cool gift with your E-Card
| http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
|
|