From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Mon Nov 07 2005 - 01:56:49 GMT
Erin,
Erin said:
Sorry to confuse you. I never thought you agreed with
Ham's position. I was surprised you agreed with his
summary of "my" position which you corrected was your
position. LOL I don't know if that is any less
confusing?? I don't agree with Ian/Arlo/Pirsig that
we evolved into language. But Ham's summary of
language waiting there and humans latching onto it
sounded more like that evolving into langauge idea.
Is this any clearer or just more confusion??
But I'm not sure if I misread Ham's summary and so was
asking you about it.
Scott:
Ok, got it. Yes, I was incorrect in the way I corrected Ham's lumping
everyone together: should have separated you out from Ian/Arlo/Pirsig, and I
wouldn't be surprised if those three shouldn't be distinguished as well.
Erin said:
I don't think I completely understand what you are
saying but I think what I think is closer to your
ideas than Ian's. The reason is because I find the
argument that language didn't evolve out of
non-language convincing....so when you talk about
participation and the tree and that is better to think
of it as the same type of intellect that makes sense
to me.
I think where you lose is me can be seen your
summarization of my position....all that we experience
(including individuality) is semiotic, but whether
that's true of non-human experience is unknown.
I guess I am struggling with from reconciling the idea
that yes the tree does have the same
language/intellect as me but yes a tree experience is
still unknown to me. Although it is the same type of
language/intellect I think others interpret it as the
tree is intelligent (in the Pirsigian used sense).
Many posts to you about this frustrate me because they
argue against your position but still using Pirsig
definition of intellect. Maybe even I even am doing
that now??
Let me put it this way and maybe you can help clarify
at where I lose you. I don't have a problem saying
that the tree intellect is the same type as my
intellect but I what I don't know is the tree
perspective....does the tree intellect not percieve my
intellect? does it appear different? does it also
appear the same?
Scott:
Here is where the importance of the fact (well, ok, theory) that, according
to Barfield, we have lost any conscious participation. Because of that there
is no communication between us and nature except (as I like to put it) the
surface syntax. We can study that syntax (which we call science) but can't
read the language -- the words (our sense perceptions) don't function as
words, that is, take us to the meaning. Hence there is no communication, and
hence we can't answer the questions you are asking. By the way, I don't
think the loss is total. I suspect that experiencing beauty in nature, or in
art (especially music, for me at least) are either remnants of original
participation or hints of final participation. But, again, I'm speculating.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 07 2005 - 03:05:47 GMT