williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (06/04/85)
> In the "Order of Things" he says that our concept of > "man" was born in the "scientific revolution" and is right now > changing as we leave that epistime and move into a new one. He > proposes that the whole way we order the world has changed > dramatically in the past and is in the process of changing > again. He says that all human sciences are becoming a single > science, linguistics. I have to disagree with this statement. Linguistics may be a science of sorts, Science in the nature of trying to take an objective perspective, but not science in manner in which the information is acquired. I think linguistics inherently involves the analyst's personal experiences, and as so, the influence of the position of professional linguists relative to the general populace is anything but insignificant. It is highly likely that individual isolated efforts at understanding linguistics could draw far different conclusions with the same degree of success. Even so, it presents a powerful instrument, for the study and clarification of language strongly influences the evolution of that language. For the most part, language is representative of our daily affairs, which until now was not as nearly so self referential. There are a million ways to analyze anything, and linguistics is a way of understanding the structure of language in the constructs of symbolic connection. This, of course, does not take into account what might actually be said. One of the basic purposes of linguistics is to make very strong symbolic connections, which can often be perceived as wild claims, for example, linguistics is the true science. This is similar to what alot of people are prone to do when they are enlightened upon some particular perspective of existence, that is, to demonstrate how all things relate to a particular field of study, when, in reality, it is simply another specialty. The question is this: How well can linguists separate themselves from their egos in order to not assert rash assumptions of their own value to society? The truth is is that we need all aspects of society to set the environment in which linguistics work. In other words, linguistics is not THE science, linguistics is simply ANOTHER science. > Another thread that seems relevant is "mental illness." > According to Foucault (and others, notably Thomas Szaz), the > idea that "minds" are somehow like bodies and that they can get > "sick" and be "cured" by doctors is a recent concept. It is an > idea that does not seem to work at all. Today many people do > not believe that it is possible to isolate "individual > pathologies" and realize that what behavior constitutes "normal > behavior" and what behavior is "abnormal behavior" must be > determined in the larger social context. Just this might give > a before/after description. > before - mind is mostly individual > after - mind is mostly social This transformation is consistent with evolution. It is not simply an observation of something that has been all along, it is the emergence of a characteristic through social evolution. Mankind has never achieved this level of communication before throughout his history of development. It is extremely important to note, however, that this is only because we have established a social environment, where it is beneficial to share ideas, and to establish a free trade of information. It is natural that initially these messages are of a highly commercial nature, but this is only continually successful in an ignorant society. A linguist must be doubly careful. First, that he does not enforce terms that are unsuitable for popular use, and second, that he doesn't enforce the language as it is without leaving room for evolution. He must be a guide, understanding where it is that society wishes to go, which defies any sort of methodology, which defies science as we know it. A good linguist acts more as a catalyst. Would you agree with this? > One of the things I found most enlightening was when > Randi asked him if it was easier to fool adults or children. > He said that adults were much easier to fool because they > *want* to believe in psysic powers. > I believe this guy's story is a metaphor for Geller. > Geller will not do his tricks for either Randi or Johnny > Carson. (Johnny Carson is also an excellent magician). I believe this. Many people fall victim to believing in things that appear to transcend all explanations, and very often find rooting in that person's everyday existence. To let go of certain ideals is often too difficult for a responsible adult to undertake, where children must change their beliefs almost daily. It is very rare to find a person who immediately changes their beliefs when they conflict with observation. More often than not, they will pretend something never even happened. The mind is incapable of functioning in a constant state of metastability, and conclusions need to be drawn. Unfortunately, most of them turn out to be wrong. A classic case is with the pythagorians who hid the fifth regular polyhedron from the populace because it conflicted with their theory concerning the four elements. I would personally like to hear more concerning linguistics, like: Observation -> Research -> Linguistics -> Mutation -> Observation I feel that the identification of linguistics is important to the development of society and civilization. It is a transposition of natural laws into artificial ones ( see opening paragraph where I explain how linguistics is not a " perfect " science ) that can easily replace other forms of code enforcement in a humane way. In particular, the applications in computer science are of great value, if we intend to make machines more like people, and not make people more like machines. The strength of symbolic connection in computers has always been invariable, and the result is confusion. It is far too easy for science to evolve unnaturally, and that is a dangerous proposition. This goes for linguistics, as well. John Williams < You have my Word >