[69]                               home                          [71]


Tuesday, October 19, 2004



Previous beads in this thread are about algorithm using Orbs  à [63]


Algorithm development using Orbs





Linguists and anthropologists will tell you that there are many theories of language.  Almost all of them are qualified as the theory of language learning.


There is the neural theory of language, the motor theory of language. etc.  And there are general linguistic "theories of language", 


See: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/whorf.html


for example where theories of language are dichotomized into two classes: the mould theories and the cloak theories.


Within linguistic theory, two extreme positions concerning the relationship between language and thought are commonly referred to as 'mould theories’ and 'cloak theories'. Mould theories represent language as 'a mould in terms of which thought categories are cast' (Bruner et al. 1956, p. 11). Cloak theories represent the view that 'language is a cloak conforming to the customary categories of thought of its speakers' (ibid.). The doctrine that language is the 'dress of thought' was fundamental in Neo-Classical literary theory (Abrams 1953, p. 290),

Quote from [##]


Might the Adi theory be better characterized as a theory about how common knowledge is encoded into language? 


Comment from Paul:

In this case we have a theory of knowledge, a theory of language use and acquisition, and a theory of what is experienced.  I think that the Adi’s work is a theory of language that begins to give information about what knowledge is and what is being experienced as humans obtain knowledge and communicate knowledge within a community.


There is conjectured to be common (universal) knowledge of how things fit and work together (or not) at the most fundamental level.  We have conjectured that this knowledge guides or shapes thought.  


Our term “substructural ontology” is an interesting use of technical language and goes to the question about what is ontological?


Comment by Paul

Ontology should be something like the gene.  There is an expression of ontology into some manifestation.  Likewise the gene cannot be understood without a reference to the environment in which the gene is expressing.  The term “substructural ontology is not used very much.  The first four hits on Goggle points to my work.  Peter Kugler and I have talked about the nature of “ontological expression”.


The stratified theory, and the tri-level architecture, needs to have a language to shift focus from the middle level where things are being expressed, the substructure where things do not exist as things.  The contradiction is not an error; it is reflecting the natural reality.  The situation is like the use of the term “beables” in Bell’s description of “un-measured quantum ‘states’”. 


I may invite some noted linguists (Professor Lawler at the U. Mich.) to take a look at this when it is correct.


Comment from Paul

He will agree that we are early in the process of developing a discipline.  As we move forward with the Centers of Excellence each member of the core team should understand why something might be said rather than accept what someone might say in an authoritarian fashion.