An analogy.

Acquiring a concept is like being taken hostage. I must apply like it this, I can only see it like this, I am forced do like this. But in being taken hostage by a concept I immediately suffer from Stockholm syndrome. I identify with the concept. That is to say, I take its commitment upon myself freely. The way in which I am compelled is more alike to being bound by a moral imperative than to being forced by causality. My spontaneity reigns here. I am free to use the concept. But only free to use it like this. Just like a hostage held at gun point is causally free to do whatever he likes, but knows that it will have consequences to do whatever he damn well pleases.

Language conceived descriptively or prescriptively

My previous post(s) touched on the confusion between prescriptive and descriptive in general and within the social sciences. There is, I beleive, a corresponding confusion in our conception of language:

Language, roughly, can be described in two ways:

(1)One in which symbol-types are related to symbols-token as class to member and in which communication fulfills some empirical purpose. Symbols are used and these uses are events, ’symbol-events’. And ’symbol-events’ are categorized according to their symbol. They stand as class to member.

(2) One in which symbol-types are related to symbol-tokens as norms are related to its instances and in which communication is correct or incorrect. Symbols are standards and the use of symbols are actions in accordance with such standards. A use of symbols conforms or complies with a standard. They stand as norm to its instances.

This distinction cuts across linguistic and philosophical-semantic theories. (1) may be called 'the descriptive perspective' and (2) may be called 'the prescriptive perspective'.

Ask yourself: Which side of the distinction am I applying now and when may I be subject to confusing the two sides?