Re: Out of Control - words, etc.

[John Schinnerer <eco_living@yahoo.com>]

Aloha,

> I stumble at "languaging" and even harder at "languaging has
> embodiment." Does that mean that the process of using language takes 
> on physical form? Or does it mean that it takes a body to make 
> language?

Yes, and yes; I use language through my physical form and need my
physical form to do so (as far as I can tell, and certainly 99% of the
time - please let's not wander off into arguments about ESP, etc.
here).  

or:  My use of language is not separate from "me" as a whole.  

or:  My use of language and my manner of being co-evolve; they inform
each other.

or:  "Profanity is the sign of a weak mind trying to express itself
forcefully."  - a saying from my old High School shop teacher, which I
think points to one's use of language not being separate from one's
(true ;-) whole self.

>..for some
> reason Bateson (or whoever invented the word) felt that a new word
> was necessary. I suppose that was to break us out of conventional
> patterns of thinking, or to avoid reification by getting rid of the 
> noun altogether.

Yeah, that's my understanding.

> However, gerunds--I think "languaging" is a gerund--are called
> "verbal nouns" anyway, so the problem is still there, but the non-
> standard word makes the problem harder to see. 

Could be - although I don't think most people have your technical grasp
of grammar, Toby, and might fall for the "trick" of using a gerund...I
certainly did...;-)  And I agree it's not necessary, if we pay
attention to whether we're talking process or object.  It's one attempt
at a linguistic nudge, anyhow.  Paying attention - observing our own
doing - is the real crux.

Maturana's "constitutive ontology" is indeed a mouthful.  The core of
it is simply this (IMO):

Experiences happen.
Then we explain them.

(to elaborate further:)

As unique living systems, we each have our own unique experiences.
Thus our explanations differ.
Taking these differences to be transcendental (i.e. existing outside of
ourselves) rather than constitutive (i.e. arising inside ourselves), we
often create all sorts of trouble for ourselves (and others).

Bateson suggests that the nature of the Catholic/Protestant wars was
(is?) exemplified by this:  the Catholics believe the bread and wine
*is* the body of Christ and the Protestants believe it *represents* the
body of Christ.

A Buddhist monk I heard talk years ago (a young Brit, a former
head-banger punk by his own account) put it in terms of going to a
concert with a friend - only one set of musicians was there, they only
played exactly the unique notes they played.  Yet walking to the pub
afterwards, he praised the show and his friend thought it stank.  Same
exact concert - two different beings ("minds," in Buddhist terms), two
different experiences.  It's an extreme example - they might have
disagreed only ever so slightly about a few details.

The point is - do the two friends externalize (make transcendental)
their respective experiences, insisting that one *or* the other must be
"true" or "correct" or "right" and have a falling-out over it?  Or do
they recognize the internal (constitutive) nature of their respective
experiences and go enjoy a pint or two together?


=====
John Schinnerer, MA
--------------------
- Eco-Living -
Cultural & Ecological Designing
Food - Shelter - Community
john@eco-living.net
http://eco-living.net

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1