Dear Mr. Choi

 

 

보낸 사람:  "Noam Chomsky" < chomsky@MIT.EDU>

받는 사람:  gomse@yahoo.co.kr

보낸 날짜: 2001년 4월 16일 월요일 오전 1:22

 

Dear Mr. Choi,

 

The point you make about distinction between competence(in the technical

sense) and the "still mysterious ability" is absolutely correct. I think the book

you mention is clear in keeping to this distinction. I've often emphasized it elsewhere.

As indicated in the quotes you give, competence has to do with mechanisms and their acquisition (the growth of the internal language from the genetically-determined initial state to some relatively stable state, under the influence of external stimulation, much as in the case of other system).

The mysterious ability has to do with the use of the mechanisms.

 For Descartes and his followers, the use of the mechanisms (what I called

"the creative aspect of language use") offered the most striking criterion to distinguish mind and body. That theory collapsed when Newton demolished

the theory of body, and since then we can only speak of "mental aspects of

the world" which are on a par with chemical, optical, or other aspects. 

But the mystery remains, not only for for humans(as Descartes thought).

Thus there are many interesting studies of how a cockroach walks, but no one even asks why it turns left instead of right.

Such questions can be raised for bacteria, maybe single-celled organisms.

Beyond that they are scarcely investigated because no one knows how.

 

So there is indeed a crusial distinction between the study of mechanisms(which falls within contemporary science) and the study of the use of the mechanisms by an organism (so far just a dream, maybe beyond our cognitive capacity).

 

I don't agree with you about Adam Smith.  In _Wealth of Nations_, he uses the phrase "invisible hand" exactly once. The context, usually omitted in secondary sources, is the discussion of his objections to capital mobility, which he regarded (plausibly) as harmful.  He suggested that it might not be too much of a problem, because English investors (what he had in mind) would prefer to invest at home for reasons of self-interest, so that this might be one of the cases where an "invisible hand" leads to beneficial outcomes of actions taken in self-interest.  He didn't put too much stock in this, and the context is rather crucial.

 

I'm also skeptical about the terminological innovation: "invisible tongue."

It's misleading. The tongue is involved in the creative aspect of language use, but quite peripherally. It's not involved in what you and I are doing now.

The important work is going on in the components of the mind/brain that are responsible for choice of action -- no one has the slightest idea how, even from insects.

 

Noam Chomsky