Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [neoplatonism] Linguistics for Neoplatonists 1

Expand Messages
  • Dan Tomulet
    Hi I have written my doctoral thesis on this topic. Are you interested? Daniel tomulet Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi
      I have written my doctoral thesis on this topic. Are you interested?
      Daniel tomulet

      Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T

      Thomas Mether <thomas.r.mether@...> wrote:

      >List:
      >
      >I will do this project in installments. I admit up front that I'm
      >advocating for a broadly Neoplatonist interpretation of the results and
      >research findings of the last 70 years in linguistic research. There are a
      >significant number of linguists coming to the same conclusion. Their work
      >and who they are will emerge as we proceed.
      >
      >When possible, I will allude to philosophical traditions that anticipated
      >current findings. Three random examples are the following. First, Hindu
      >grammarians advocating the sphota-theory were for the most part correct.
      >Basically, it is an ancient semantic view that sound sequences or reading
      >letters sequences mentally have a different kind of temporality than the
      >perception of meaning. It was also the view that the minimum unit of
      >meaning was the phrase, clause, or sentence -- not words nor individual
      >"letters". Second, there is some degree of overlap between contemporary
      >linguistics on consequence relations (entailments, deductive inferences)
      >and late medieval material logic. Third, studies in childhood cognitive
      >development have validated the tree of predicables as a cognitive stratagem
      >(Porphyry trees) as a component of maturing semantic competence.
      >
      >There are plenty more examples.
      >
      >The first installment will speak in broad terms about problems with earlier
      >approaches to language in both philosophy and linguistics that led to the
      >Chomskyan revolution in the late 1950s and 1960s with the development of
      >Transformational Grammar. A discussion of its history as a research
      >paradigm will be background to how current findings and perspectives
      >developed.
      >
      >Through most of the other installments we will assume the viewpoint of
      >evolving linguistic theory and empirical findings through the 1960s into
      >the 1980s that a complete linguistic description of a language would be a
      >grammatical (phonetics, morphology, syntax), semantic (meaning system), and
      >pragmatics (contextualized communicative interaction) description. However,
      >please note in advance that this viewpoint will eventually be abandoned as
      >we explore how and why semantics emerges as not a subsystem of a language
      >but as a socially distributed (unevenly distributed) tacit ontological
      >knowledge of reality's manifest intelligibility, value-validity, and hence,
      >meaning structures as available to human cognizers. Wow, back to Porphyry's
      >trees of predicables.
      >
      >Thomas
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Thomas Mether
      Sure! ... -- Tri un cyntefig y sydd, ag nis gellir amgen nag un o honynt, un duw; un gwirionedd; ag un pwnge rhyddyd, sef y bydd lle bo cydbwys pob gwrth. Tri
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 4, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Sure!

        On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Dan Tomulet <dtomulet@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > Hi
        > I have written my doctoral thesis on this topic. Are you interested?
        > Daniel tomulet
        >
        > Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
        >
        >
        > Thomas Mether <thomas.r.mether@...> wrote:
        >
        > >List:
        > >
        > >I will do this project in installments. I admit up front that I'm
        > >advocating for a broadly Neoplatonist interpretation of the results and
        > >research findings of the last 70 years in linguistic research. There are a
        > >significant number of linguists coming to the same conclusion. Their work
        > >and who they are will emerge as we proceed.
        > >
        > >When possible, I will allude to philosophical traditions that anticipated
        > >current findings. Three random examples are the following. First, Hindu
        > >grammarians advocating the sphota-theory were for the most part correct.
        > >Basically, it is an ancient semantic view that sound sequences or reading
        > >letters sequences mentally have a different kind of temporality than the
        > >perception of meaning. It was also the view that the minimum unit of
        > >meaning was the phrase, clause, or sentence -- not words nor individual
        > >"letters". Second, there is some degree of overlap between contemporary
        > >linguistics on consequence relations (entailments, deductive inferences)
        > >and late medieval material logic. Third, studies in childhood cognitive
        > >development have validated the tree of predicables as a cognitive
        > stratagem
        > >(Porphyry trees) as a component of maturing semantic competence.
        > >
        > >There are plenty more examples.
        > >
        > >The first installment will speak in broad terms about problems with
        > earlier
        > >approaches to language in both philosophy and linguistics that led to the
        > >Chomskyan revolution in the late 1950s and 1960s with the development of
        > >Transformational Grammar. A discussion of its history as a research
        > >paradigm will be background to how current findings and perspectives
        > >developed.
        > >
        > >Through most of the other installments we will assume the viewpoint of
        > >evolving linguistic theory and empirical findings through the 1960s into
        > >the 1980s that a complete linguistic description of a language would be a
        > >grammatical (phonetics, morphology, syntax), semantic (meaning system),
        > and
        > >pragmatics (contextualized communicative interaction) description.
        > However,
        > >please note in advance that this viewpoint will eventually be abandoned as
        > >we explore how and why semantics emerges as not a subsystem of a language
        > >but as a socially distributed (unevenly distributed) tacit ontological
        > >knowledge of reality's manifest intelligibility, value-validity, and
        > hence,
        > >meaning structures as available to human cognizers. Wow, back to
        > Porphyry's
        > >trees of predicables.
        > >
        > >Thomas
        > >
        > >
        > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        >
        >



        --
        Tri un cyntefig y sydd, ag nis gellir amgen nag un o honynt, un duw; un
        gwirionedd; ag un pwnge rhyddyd, sef y bydd lle bo cydbwys pob gwrth. Tri
        pheth tardd o'r tri un cyntefig, pob bywyd; pob daioni; a phob gallu. Tri
        chadernyd hanfod, nis gellir amgen; nid rhaid amgen; ag nis gellir gwell
        gan feddwi.

        -- TRIOEDD


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Tomulet Daniel
        HelloThank you for answering. Please, keep in mind that I am a beginner. Have a good day, today!Dan Tomulet ... [Non-text portions of this message have been
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 5, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          HelloThank you for answering. Please, keep in mind that I am a beginner. Have a good day, today!Dan Tomulet

          > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
          > From: thomas.r.mether@...
          > Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:12:50 -0500
          > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Linguistics for Neoplatonists 1
          >
          > Sure!
          >
          > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Dan Tomulet <dtomulet@...> wrote:
          >
          > > **
          > >
          > >
          > > Hi
          > > I have written my doctoral thesis on this topic. Are you interested?
          > > Daniel tomulet
          > >
          > > Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
          > >
          > >
          > > Thomas Mether <thomas.r.mether@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > >List:
          > > >
          > > >I will do this project in installments. I admit up front that I'm
          > > >advocating for a broadly Neoplatonist interpretation of the results and
          > > >research findings of the last 70 years in linguistic research. There are a
          > > >significant number of linguists coming to the same conclusion. Their work
          > > >and who they are will emerge as we proceed.
          > > >
          > > >When possible, I will allude to philosophical traditions that anticipated
          > > >current findings. Three random examples are the following. First, Hindu
          > > >grammarians advocating the sphota-theory were for the most part correct.
          > > >Basically, it is an ancient semantic view that sound sequences or reading
          > > >letters sequences mentally have a different kind of temporality than the
          > > >perception of meaning. It was also the view that the minimum unit of
          > > >meaning was the phrase, clause, or sentence -- not words nor individual
          > > >"letters". Second, there is some degree of overlap between contemporary
          > > >linguistics on consequence relations (entailments, deductive inferences)
          > > >and late medieval material logic. Third, studies in childhood cognitive
          > > >development have validated the tree of predicables as a cognitive
          > > stratagem
          > > >(Porphyry trees) as a component of maturing semantic competence.
          > > >
          > > >There are plenty more examples.
          > > >
          > > >The first installment will speak in broad terms about problems with
          > > earlier
          > > >approaches to language in both philosophy and linguistics that led to the
          > > >Chomskyan revolution in the late 1950s and 1960s with the development of
          > > >Transformational Grammar. A discussion of its history as a research
          > > >paradigm will be background to how current findings and perspectives
          > > >developed.
          > > >
          > > >Through most of the other installments we will assume the viewpoint of
          > > >evolving linguistic theory and empirical findings through the 1960s into
          > > >the 1980s that a complete linguistic description of a language would be a
          > > >grammatical (phonetics, morphology, syntax), semantic (meaning system),
          > > and
          > > >pragmatics (contextualized communicative interaction) description.
          > > However,
          > > >please note in advance that this viewpoint will eventually be abandoned as
          > > >we explore how and why semantics emerges as not a subsystem of a language
          > > >but as a socially distributed (unevenly distributed) tacit ontological
          > > >knowledge of reality's manifest intelligibility, value-validity, and
          > > hence,
          > > >meaning structures as available to human cognizers. Wow, back to
          > > Porphyry's
          > > >trees of predicables.
          > > >
          > > >Thomas
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > --
          > Tri un cyntefig y sydd, ag nis gellir amgen nag un o honynt, un duw; un
          > gwirionedd; ag un pwnge rhyddyd, sef y bydd lle bo cydbwys pob gwrth. Tri
          > pheth tardd o'r tri un cyntefig, pob bywyd; pob daioni; a phob gallu. Tri
          > chadernyd hanfod, nis gellir amgen; nid rhaid amgen; ag nis gellir gwell
          > gan feddwi.
          >
          > -- TRIOEDD
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Thomas Mether
          Hello, What I am going to present (and argue) is that we are all beginners. It will mainly present what we know and how that eliminates certain alternatives
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 9, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello,
            What I am going to present (and argue) is that we are all beginners. It
            will mainly present what we know and how that eliminates certain
            alternatives that are wrong.

            Currently, we have some contradictory outcomes in linguistics. The findings
            for both are solid. Since both outcomes have eliminated nominalist and
            physicalist options (nominalist physicalists keep generating a literature
            of how to maintain these commitments, fail, get criticized, and re-assert
            themselves as "it must be true somehow") because they are committed to
            linguistic universals that define the essence of what makes a language a
            language (natural languages are a species of a genus). I propose the
            apparent contradiction is apparent only. A Neoplatonist hypothesis is a
            proposed solution.

            The only puzzle will be "intelligibility" must be much broader than
            traditional. It must include not only recognition of what is permanent in
            change, but also, that change is the condition for the possibility of
            recognizing the permanent as well as its existence (crudely, eternity is
            dependent upon time as time is upon eternity - both are a "metaphysical
            composition", i.e., principles not real unless subtantially combined), and
            that sensible is also a sensible intelligibility and universal (this
            specific shade of red occurs in how many instances and means what - red is
            information and a specific universal and as information that is a universal
            is not a noncolored inference!), that intelligibility is also visceral and
            embodied, tensed, timed, and interpersonal (ethical).




            On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Tomulet Daniel <dtomulet@...> wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            >
            > HelloThank you for answering. Please, keep in mind that I am a beginner.
            > Have a good day, today!Dan Tomulet
            >
            > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
            > > From: thomas.r.mether@...
            > > Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:12:50 -0500
            > > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Linguistics for Neoplatonists 1
            >
            > >
            > > Sure!
            > >
            > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Dan Tomulet <dtomulet@...>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > > **
            >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Hi
            > > > I have written my doctoral thesis on this topic. Are you interested?
            > > > Daniel tomulet
            > > >
            > > > Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Thomas Mether <thomas.r.mether@...> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > >List:
            > > > >
            > > > >I will do this project in installments. I admit up front that I'm
            > > > >advocating for a broadly Neoplatonist interpretation of the results
            > and
            > > > >research findings of the last 70 years in linguistic research. There
            > are a
            > > > >significant number of linguists coming to the same conclusion. Their
            > work
            > > > >and who they are will emerge as we proceed.
            > > > >
            > > > >When possible, I will allude to philosophical traditions that
            > anticipated
            > > > >current findings. Three random examples are the following. First,
            > Hindu
            > > > >grammarians advocating the sphota-theory were for the most part
            > correct.
            > > > >Basically, it is an ancient semantic view that sound sequences or
            > reading
            > > > >letters sequences mentally have a different kind of temporality than
            > the
            > > > >perception of meaning. It was also the view that the minimum unit of
            > > > >meaning was the phrase, clause, or sentence -- not words nor
            > individual
            > > > >"letters". Second, there is some degree of overlap between
            > contemporary
            > > > >linguistics on consequence relations (entailments, deductive
            > inferences)
            > > > >and late medieval material logic. Third, studies in childhood
            > cognitive
            > > > >development have validated the tree of predicables as a cognitive
            > > > stratagem
            > > > >(Porphyry trees) as a component of maturing semantic competence.
            > > > >
            > > > >There are plenty more examples.
            > > > >
            > > > >The first installment will speak in broad terms about problems with
            > > > earlier
            > > > >approaches to language in both philosophy and linguistics that led to
            > the
            > > > >Chomskyan revolution in the late 1950s and 1960s with the development
            > of
            > > > >Transformational Grammar. A discussion of its history as a research
            > > > >paradigm will be background to how current findings and perspectives
            > > > >developed.
            > > > >
            > > > >Through most of the other installments we will assume the viewpoint of
            > > > >evolving linguistic theory and empirical findings through the 1960s
            > into
            > > > >the 1980s that a complete linguistic description of a language would
            > be a
            > > > >grammatical (phonetics, morphology, syntax), semantic (meaning
            > system),
            > > > and
            > > > >pragmatics (contextualized communicative interaction) description.
            > > > However,
            > > > >please note in advance that this viewpoint will eventually be
            > abandoned as
            > > > >we explore how and why semantics emerges as not a subsystem of a
            > language
            > > > >but as a socially distributed (unevenly distributed) tacit ontological
            > > > >knowledge of reality's manifest intelligibility, value-validity, and
            > > > hence,
            > > > >meaning structures as available to human cognizers. Wow, back to
            > > > Porphyry's
            > > > >trees of predicables.
            > > > >
            > > > >Thomas
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --
            > > Tri un cyntefig y sydd, ag nis gellir amgen nag un o honynt, un duw; un
            > > gwirionedd; ag un pwnge rhyddyd, sef y bydd lle bo cydbwys pob gwrth. Tri
            > > pheth tardd o'r tri un cyntefig, pob bywyd; pob daioni; a phob gallu. Tri
            > > chadernyd hanfod, nis gellir amgen; nid rhaid amgen; ag nis gellir gwell
            > > gan feddwi.
            > >
            > > -- TRIOEDD
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >



            --
            Tri un cyntefig y sydd, ag nis gellir amgen nag un o honynt, un duw; un
            gwirionedd; ag un pwnge rhyddyd, sef y bydd lle bo cydbwys pob gwrth. Tri
            pheth tardd o'r tri un cyntefig, pob bywyd; pob daioni; a phob gallu. Tri
            chadernyd hanfod, nis gellir amgen; nid rhaid amgen; ag nis gellir gwell
            gan feddwi.

            -- TRIOEDD


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.