White horses and orphan colts

[robinturner]

On the recent discussion of radial categories (see replies to Oops, I did it again), what do the linguists/philosophers out there make of these statements attributed to Huizi (a leading member of the "School of Names"):

"A white horse is not a horse."
"An orphan colt has never had a mother."

Correction (28/6/01)

Oops, that wasn't Huizi, it was Gong-sun Long (the other main person in that particular school). Huizi (also known as Hui Shi) was the guy who said things like "The heavens are as low as the earth; mountains are on the same level as marshes."

Comments

Re: oh my god. it's cog sci 101 all over again.

[kristian.livejournal.com]

Or, to use a more realistic example, someone stuck in a closet her whole life? Someone who neither speaks nor comprehends any language at all. Can that person really have thoughts and ideas that are even SLIGHTLY as deep as those of a normally intelligent speaker of a language?

I really can't say what they would think. Or even how. Being stuck in a cupboard means you are without ANY sensory input, more or less. Which of course would be reflected in ones ability to think about "deep" things. But it is not the same as someone who lives in a world of sensory errr stuff.

Deep thinking is only confused by the language one uses! How many times have I used that expression? Many. How much more is understood to me when I think of a tree than when I say to someone "a tree".

Consider the profound insight and clarity one experiences in mediation and other such practices, when one intentionally removes language and stuff from the mind!

I hope I don't appear to be arguing that language is useless or anything like that!

mmm ... sleep deprivation

[ex-fauxpas266.livejournal.com]

I still doubt that a person without language, living in a world of "sensory stuff," could think "deep thoughts" as we know them. My guess is still that they could associate certain objects (e.g. certain mushrooms) with certain events (e.g. hallucinations), and things like that. But could they think about the same wacky things that Heidegger did? I would doubt it very much. His stuff was structured with language. Could they think "deep thoughts" on a similar level, yet totally different because not structured with language? I have no idea! I doubt it, but I have no idea! And I have no idea how we'd even go about FINDING OUT!

I've never meditated, but I don't believe it when it's said that "ALL" things are removed from the mind. The mind cannot be totally blank. And yes, they have done brain scans on people in deep meditation. There is brain activity aplenty! Unless they're, like, DEAD!

However, I do appreciate what you're saying about language confusing one's thinking. I am greatly disturbed by the way language can lead people astray. Like the whole damn sexuality thing. I'd be rich if I had a nickel for every girl who was depressed and confused because she was a "lesbian" yet had a "crush" on a boy. If there was no language with which to describe sexuality, I bet there wouldn't be people with "issues" and "problems" about their sexuality!

Maybe someone with no language wouldn't NEED to think deep thoughts, because language wouldn't be there confusing/provoking her in the first place!!!

I think you ARE arguing that language is useless! I think the two of us should just shut up and take it outside! Kapow! Hah.

meditation

[ex-fauxpas266.livejournal.com]

Actually I didn't respond correctly to your point about meditation. Allow me to start over. Even if one is deep in meditation, and even if one does manage to banish language from his consciousness during meditation (though I'm still not convinced that's even possible), do you think his thinking would still be influenced by the biases picked up from language?

The only nonlinguistic thought that I have some kind of an experience with is when I'm trying to express something in words but can't do it. You know, that frustrating feeling when you have something on the tip of your tongue, but can't articulate it. Usually my thoughts don't get CLEAR until I put them in language. Though there have been a few times when these nonlinguistic thoughts seemed incredibly clear, and I felt imbued with an enormous sense of understanding. It went away very quickly, though. Without language to trap it, this understanding was fleeting.

And don't bug me about the metaphors in the previous sentence. ;)

Re: meditation

[kristian.livejournal.com]

The bias one picks up (or doesn't) is not from LANGUAGE but the ideas/thoughts which language conveys. This is why I hoped I didn't appear to be saying that language is unneccesary/useless.

Maybe I am entirely ignorant, but doesn't language convey meanings/thoughts, even if that language as the medium produces noise/ misinterpretation in the message etc etc.

I wouldn't attempt to deny that linguistic structures influence meaning and how meaning is reproduce, but I consider that OUTSIDE of the 'thought'.

As for clarity of thought. I understand what you mean by thoughts not being 'clear' until put into language. The nonlinguistic thoughts I experience are as entirely "Clear" in that they convey a "sense" of knowing, more of a bodily feeling than a solid structured thought. But no less an understanding and knowledge. Perhaps it is a cultural bias to need to organise the thoughts into (often written) language.

Brain activity during mediation is entire expected. We are clearing out CONSCIOUS minds, not our entire minds, which are no less ours. I would hazard a guess however, that the activity noted is not that which one would expect during conscious manipulation/use of linguistics.

I apologise to both of you for my vague and poor replies! rushing+ignorance!

I'm confusing myself.

[ex-fauxpas266.livejournal.com]

The bias one picks up (or doesn't) is not from LANGUAGE but the ideas/thoughts which language conveys.

But I think there ARE biases picked up from language -- my whole "sexuality" thing spoke directly to this issue. Even if someone managed to banish language from his head during deep meditation (which I'm not convinced is possible anyway), a contemporary speaker of English might still think of sexuality as being divided into three general categories -- homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual. This person still might conceive of himself as fitting into one of these categories, especially if one of them was a central part of his identity. So this person might still differentiate himself from other people based on these linguistic concepts.

Cultures that didn't distinguish sexuality in this way probably had no conceptions of these distinctions! Why should they? (And yeah, while this is speculation on my part, I WOULD love to research it. I guess I would begin by looking at pre-whitey Polynesian languages. [I understand those societies had virtually no sexual taboos.] How would I do that? Where do I look? Are they even recorded?)

I realize I may have something backwards. Bah. I will keep thinking about it. But why did English (and other languages) formulate these categories for sexuality in the first place? The words are probably some reflection of a thought process, but now these entrenched words influence the thought process. Where does it begin? What is the extent of it all?

I'm too tired and rushed right now to respond to the rest of your post for now, alas.

Re: I'm confusing myself.

[solri.livejournal.com]

There are some languages/cultures where only "passive" homosexuals have a specific word to describe them. I can't imagine this not having an effect on sexual behaviour.

homosexuality, passive vs. active

[ex-fauxpas266.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there are some cultures (can't remember specifics) that don't consider the men who penetrate other men homosexual, while the man who is being penetrated is considered homosexual. The "passive" one is stigmatized while the "active" one is not.