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: 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.