[Fwd: Re: endless relativism]

Gary Blanchard ( garyb@pics.com )
Sat, 15 Jun 1996 21:54:01 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------37636C467142
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Devi-

Thanks for your note about what my constructivism is all about, and your
requests for information. It is simpler for me simply to go back into
the files and forward some back messages, where I have sought to do this.
Upon completion, I will respond more directly to your good and thorough,
latest post.

> > On Wed, 1 May 1996 garyb@pics.com wrote (to Alessandra):
> >
> > > Hi--
> > >
> > > Thanks for yours. I wonder where you get the idea that, in the
> > >end, I am just
> > > ...about constructing my constructions, etc.
> > > I am from the school that there are two formulations of
> > >reality, a la
> > > Searle. One can be called an Assertion, and is capable of being
> > >proved, to a
> > > community of observers using standards accepted as valid in that
> > > community.
> > > Like "Is there a rock there?" Try driving through it and you will
> > > discover it
> > > is not an opinion, or Assessment.

> > > The second possible reality formulation statement can be termed
> > > as
> > > Assessment, and comprises by far the bulk of what we utter. There
> > > are two types
> > > of these: grounded and ungrounded. A grounded one is an assessment
> > > for which a
> > > minimum of three assertion statements can be produced--"your shoes
> > > are scuffed
> > > and badly worn." An ungrounded one, which comprise the vast bulk
> > > of which we
> > > produce, has few if any such factual formulations to support it:
> > > "you are
> > > hopeless."
> > > So, then, I assess that while all statements can be said to be
> > > constructed,
> > > they are not all of equal character or value, and hence provide
> > > highly
> > > differing value to one concerned with using them to coordinate
> > > action with
> > > others, themself, or life.
> > > RSVP.... gary

And, also, to Alessandra:

> Thanks for your two messages. I am reflecting on them.
>
> For the moment, I will say this: we humans only know that which we
> can bring into our language. I say 'language' as the genus, with what
> most of us call 'language' more correctly being known as tongues, or
> variations of language (over 2,000 at last count, I understand).
>
> Our every move, thought , idea, feeling, etc., is
> linnguistically-enveloped,
> if we look close enough. And if a matter is not so enveloped, or is
> 'outside of language,' ---like, for example, the sound of a dog whistle
> would be to our ability to 'hear'---then we do not know about the
> phenomenon.
>
> That's why I say, with Maturana, Flores, Winograd, etc., 'we live in
> language.' In language we are married and buried. In language we buy
> and we sell. In language we love and we hate, make friends and
> enemies.
>
> So the most fundamental point which anyone seeking to understand we
> humans needs to get, deeply, is that we are primarily linguistic
> creatures. And we are the only creatures we know of, of whom that is
> so.
>
> More to come later. RSVP, Alessandra...and others? Best, Gary
####

--------------37636C467142
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <31953E8E.624E@pics.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 18:27:42 -0700
From: Gary Blanchard <garyb@pics.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alessandra Iantaffi <A.Iantaffi@reading.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: endless relativism
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960510164856.27792D-100000@suma3.reading.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011

Alessandra Iantaffi wrote:
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> I am probably on the late train ( as we say in italian) to reply this
> message, since I have left my messages pile up for a while here at Uni,
> while I was at home coping with the hayfever season. I am not too sure
> I agree with your view about two realities... Why should Assertions be
> different from Assesments? When we say 'this is a rock', are we really
> 'asserting' the same reality? It could be a rock for me, but the
> favourite seat in the garden for another, and an ensemble of molecules
> and atomes (or whatever, science has never been my strenght!) for someone
> else... How does what we say affects other people? What do we mean when
> we utter our realities? I went to see a performance of Beckett's Endgame
> in London, recently, with my partner... It bored him stiff, and he
> decided that Beckett just wanted to mock his audiences, while to me it
> talked of death, and life, and relationships, and God. They were
> assessments right? But some of those assesments we do can have on us the
> same effect of an assertion.... Take for example a nun, for her the
> existence of God is an assertion and not an assesment, is more real than
> the rocks, and the law of physics (see the life of the saints), it
> affects her life, it is her life. Well, i better stop before I start to
> make even less sense that I already do, and make a fool of myself in
> front of the all list! I hope that nobody will attempt to deconstruct
> those reflections, are they really are not terribly represeantative of
> what I am, but only of what I feel at this point in time. have a good w/e!
>
> Alessandra
>
> On Wed, 1 May 1996 garyb@pics.com wrote:
>
> > Hi--
> >
> > Thanks for yours. I wonder where you get the idea that, in the end, I am just
> > ...about constructing my constructions, etc.
> > I am from the school that there are two formulations of reality, a la
> > Searle. One can be called an Assertion, and is capable of being proved, to a
> > community of observers using standards accepted as valid in that community.
> > Like "Is there a rock there?" Try driving through it and you will discover it
> > is not an opinion, or Assessment.
> > The second possible reality formulation statement can be termed as
> > Assessment, and comprises by far the bulk of what we utter. There are two types
> > of these: grounded and ungrounded. A grounded one is an assessment for which a
> > minimum of three assertion statements can be produced--"your shoes are scuffed
> > and badly worn." An ungrounded one, which comprise the vast bulk of which we
> > produce, has few if any such factual formulations to support it: "you are
> > hopeless."
> > So, then, I assess that while all statements can be said to be constructed,
> > they are not all of equal character or value, and hence provide highly
> > differing value to one concerned with using them to coordinate action with
> > others, themself, or life.
> > RSVP.... gary
> >Dear Alessandra,

Thanks for your two messages. I am reflecting on them.

For the moment, I will say this: we humans only know that which we
canbring into our language. I say 'language' as the genus, with what
most of us call 'language' more correctly being known as tongues, or
variations of language (over 2,000 at last count, I understand).

Our every move, thought , idea, feeling, etc., is nguistically-enveloped,
if we look close enough. And if a matter is not so enveloped, or is
'outside of language,' ---like, for example, the sound of a dog whistle
would be to our ability to 'hear'---then we do not know about the
phenomenon.

That's why I say, with Maturana, Flores, Winograd, etc., 'we live in
language.' In language we are married and buried. In language we buy
and we sell. In language we love and we hate, make friends and enemies.

So the most fundamental point which anyone seeking to understand we
humans needs to get, deeply, is that we are primarily lilnguistilc
creatures. And we are the only creatures we know of, of whom that is so.

More to come later. RSVP, Alessandra...and others? Best, Gary

--------------37636C467142--

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%