Comments on: Rock Pub Abstraction

By: otter

otter — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:00:00 +0000

Judy,

I think our conversation space here is getting a bit too warped by the technology (the blog, keyboard issues, etc.) to attempt to reconstruct the context of the question. So instead I’d like fall back upon invoking an old Troy principle: there are some things that can only be discussed at the Ruck Pub.

By: judy

judy — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:50:41 +0000

Hello Art,

I don’t remember saying there was no distinction between actual and abstract is not interesting. It just I necessarily call it that. Can you help me with the context of this statement?

Conversations emerge in a language space where one can pay particular attention to the language, more specifically languaging, rather than so much as to who is doing the saying.

It is through this paying attention that one can provoke and invite a new honest language. Something I desire.

By: otter

otter — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:22:12 +0000

@Ben: The context of this discussion (as I see it) is that the first group that I was in choose not to be interested in discussing the question(s) regarding the distinction between actual and abstract. Several people in the group, including Judy, were vocal in expressing this disinterest. At the time, I was not able to understand her reasons for voicing this position (nor for that matter the position of the other principal voice expressing a similar level of disinterest). Judy self-selected herself out from this group on the second day, and the next opportunity I had to speak with her was in the Ruck (I like the idea reserving the name Rock for the imagined bar, and Ruck for the factual bar … ). We had an interesting, non-argumentative conversation, which ended in the anecdote I related in the parent post. As I recall, Judy replied in a way that implied that she didn’t think that the actual/abstract distinction was interesting or useful — but I didn’t get a chance to ask her to elaborate.

@Judy: 1) I would be most appreciative if you would explain your opinion that distinguishing between actual and abstract is not interesting. By all means express this in terms of your own thinking.

2) With respect to “language space”, that’s an idea outside my frames of reference — if you can direct me to one, great, otherwise I’ll treat it intuitively.

By: bensweeting

bensweeting — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:46:36 +0000

i dont have all the background on this discussion but.. is it helpful to distinguish between the question of whether there ‘is’ such a thing as a distinction between actual and abstract and whether making such distinctions/ creating abstractions is an undesirable idea?

By: judy

judy — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:36:57 +0000

Oh, I see, know way to delete the second?

By: judy

judy — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:35:53 +0000

For me, must I always say that? Can’t people assume I am talking about what I think when I talk not what they know.?

Language is never trivial and always in a language space. Most people want to control the conversation of the language space, which may prevent a new more honest language to arise.

Wow I just got a duplicate language message from this site. What’s that about? Does this site know the “power’ of language?

By: judy

judy — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:34:42 +0000

For me, must I always say that? Can’t people assume I am talking about what I think when I talk not what they know.?

Language is never trivial and always in a language space. Most people want to control the conversation of the language space, which may prevent a new more honest language to arise.

By: judy

judy — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:29:39 +0000

What is more important is our misinterpretations are taken as Truth.

By: judy

judy — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:28:40 +0000

Sometimes creative often destructive.

By: otter

otter — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 17:59:08 +0000

Make that: is (one of) the source(s) of evolution’s creative force.

Apparently then your thinking doesn’t fall into 3a or 3b above then.

Since ruck is a rugby term (which explains why there was always Rugby rocking on the TV) that means to fight for the ball, I am wondering perhaps whether think that conversation is some form of ruck/skirmish/scrummuage between facts and words? [OK, probably not ...]

Or maybe (something of the opposite), that words are directly linked to their objects naturalistically?

I guess what I think you are saying is that you distrust abstraction because you believe it twists things into what they are not?