Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!tektronix!cae780!leadsv!pyramid!voder!blia!blic!inspect
From: inspect@blic.BLI.COM (Mfg Inspection)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: words order in English and Japanese
Message-ID: <161@blic.BLI.COM>
Date: 27 Jan 88 18:42:29 GMT
References: <143@blic.BLI.COM> <6565@drutx.ATT.COM>
Organization: Britton Lee, Los Gatos, CA
Lines: 52
Summary: you bet!

In article <6565@drutx.ATT.COM>, clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) writes:
> in article <143@blic.BLI.COM>, inspect@blic.BLI.COM (Mfg Inspection) says:
> > Try opening a book and doing some research before proposing arrogant and
> > specious theories.

> There is something quite Japanese (perhaps what is often seen as vague) in
> Mr. Nakashima's original posting, and you have missed it entirely.

After spending a year with a Japanese man, (13 years ago, no bitterness then
or now) I am not unacquainted with this "vagueness" you mention. I found
HIM as transparent as glass. Now, Mr. Nakashima proposed a theory that the
language structuring differences might have evolved because he believed 
that the Japanese were "basically farmers" and the Europeans were "basically
hunters". What's to miss? It was his lack of prior research and his asser-
tation that the Japanese were more attuned to nuance and people's moods that
I found arrogant. Having lived in the San Francisco area most of my life, I
have been exposed to many cultures and people from "elsewhere",  that and a
rather voracious appetite for eclectic reading have led me to believe that
there are no superior cultures or "races".  There are those in the US and
abroad who maintain that there ARE superior cultures and "races": theirs.
Even the implication, my own inference if you prefer, that one group is over-
all superior to another is repugnant to me.

> Perhaps there is something really different about the organization of
> information from generality to heuristics, as it is done in the east.
 
No argument. But the farmer/hunter premise is invalid.

> Perhaps this is interesting to someone doing creative work.  Even in
> the positivist side of ai technology.

The 10% inspiration is laudable, but the 90% perspiration is required to
make the difference between day-dreaming and research. I know, I am a day-
dreamer and diletante; knowing this forces me to research ideas before
offering them to newsgroups.  Mr. Nakashima was given several paths to 
explore and information on the history of agriculture in Europe and in
Japan: his farmer/hunter premise was wrong.  This should be a whole new
starting point for his continued research, if he so chooses. Being in-
volved in creative work has its risks and one of those is being wrong. I
took constructive critisms for my own creative works and, you know, the
critics helped me improve a lot of my work. Once one rubs away the first
stings of criticism, it can feel good to follow a more effective path.

> Actually, you might want to consider your own arrogance with such talk.
> I hope it gets to be something you can appreciate better than to be rude.
 
I was dubious about my second posting on the subject, as regards rude remarks,
but as Mr. Nakashima insisted, despite evidence to the contrary, that his
theory had merit (regarding the farmer/hunter premise), I made a concious 
decision to write what I did.  Ignoring the facts in favor of maintaining a
pet theory is arrogant and specious and bad research. However, it was rude 
of me to point that out, and I apologise.