More Relativistic Blitherings
Apparent reversals of value systems (Nazi) necessarily contained in language. Question: how many new words did Nazi regime implement (note: vice mere new usages).
--very difficult to see how new ideas can be described in terms of existent words and phrases. Certainly possibility of deciding between via (say) Occam's Razor; new ideas? seems doubtful. Bear in mind most ideas deal in relational dynamics of another sort (that's one description, after all, of gravity and various other things). And doesn't mean new words necessarily denote new ideas.
Mutability of underlying value systems>identity>derived rules of conduct. Clear cultural slot for this for males--initiation rites/rites of manhood (females? dunno). Works only with primary + secondary actions. Tertiary actions (those confined to the reified world) necessarily consist of rules of behavior: nothing is actually produced + no actions which actually acquire basic necessities (other than those subsequent to servitude of some sort or another, generally wage-based) are or can be performed. (It's debatable whether or not shopping in a grocery store actually fills a basic necessity. But then we have to eat, no matter the sorts of things added without our knowledge or consent. Those who confine themselves to organic foods do have a point of sorts.)
One direct consequent of this is that the sequence of learning for survival in a rural environment is so different from that of the urban that it's unlikely the successful urban dweller can make the change. (He won't be able, generally, to co-exist with common humanity after jumping out of his Hummer or Porsche SUV.) Bear in mind that the concept of sanity is necessarily environmentally relativistic. And thus the lawyer can't learn to fell a tree-can't even learn to learn. And thus the mystery of some stories for me: because the point laid in knowledge outside of the 'correct' mode/modes.
>mode determines perceived dynamics + possible methods of response/action. [D's construction almost valid but not modes which are/must be defined in terms of relational dynamics, so the construction necessarily falls short.]
--relational dynamcs: the things that determines how you respond to a given person or situation. 'Who am I' and therefore how should I act? In a society defined by honor this process tends to be easier.
[examples: what allows you to live in your rented space and your according actions: how you act toward boss/supervisor/fellow employees]
The values which language presents are environmentally variable. (We use the same words to denote differing actions or series of actions depending upon where we are and 'who' we are...depending upon the perceived environment.) However, they can only be discussed in terms of absolutes. ('Truth' is by nature an absolute,and thus qutie simple. On a personal level it tends to be relativistic and complex.)
Rules of behavior not explicitly formulated can only be derived from (perceived) relational dynamics (and on the simplest level through 'behavioral condition').
--Glenn
7:35:42 PM 
|
