FOR ROGER AND DAVID & MD GROUP
Re.Roger's post of 16 Jan. where he wrote:
> Bo, I was out of touch with the squad when you responded to my Santiago post
> last month. I have been waiting for a chance to continue the discussion..Your
> recent 'Value force' post reminded me so much of my concept of the Santiago
> theory, that I went back and re-read Fritjof Capra's version of this theory of
> life and cognition. Before, moving on though, I want to reinforce that I agree
> wholeheartedly with your conclusions.
Yes, you were on your way to Chicago at that time (on TV we watch how
you try to cope with snow and cold. Now you know what we must endure)
I had hoped that Hugo Alroe would join in, he knows the Santiago
(Autopoesis) idea and Peirce too. We discussed the former way back,
but hardly reached any conclusions. But back to your closing words:
> Bo, even though it uses different terms and emphasizes different issues, I
> think you will agree that this is still similar in many ways to your MOQ
> interpretation of Charles Pierce.
Of course, the Santiago theory is sensational and much closer to
Pirsig's MOQ (and its interpretation of Peirce's Semiosis) than
anything previously forwarded. My "objections" are possibly motivated
by the well-known fact that when something new is developing it is
much struggle over its direction. I guess there were something like
it when Christ's teachings (no comparison either to C. or my
role :-)) were to be carried on by the disciples.
> I am not familiar with Norrestranders interpretation of the Santiago theory ,
> but your description of it is add odds with what Capra writes. You may be
> right that Maturana and Varella are not so enlightened, and that Capra doesn't
> quite put it within the concept of the MOQ, but with just a "nudge," I think
> I can push it over. Below is an MOQ version of the Santiago interpretation of
> life, language, society, consciousness and intellect:
Nörretranders is a splendid popularisator of tough scientific and
philosophical concepts, but he may not have hit the mark here. It is
almost impossible if the interpreter is not "initiated". As I see it
Nörretranders tries to interpret the autopoesis idea from a
traditional viewpoint and hence the submarine analogy. Perhaps Capra
has done a better job (btw, in what work does Capra treat the
Santiago theory?) and a nudge is enough for it to become a fully
MOQ-compatible idea. But nudges? I have seen many thinkers and
writers nudges away from a full-fledged MOQ, and yet the last
step seems insurmountable. Do you know Danah Zohar for
example?
PS. Your continuation of the MOQ/Semiosis/Santiago comparison ending
thus:
> Language comes about in those beings advanced
> enough to communicate about communication (isolated to man and some
> crude beginnings in higher primates). 'Son, at the word "CLIMB", I
> want you to scurry up fast like this...' Language is one form of
> abstract communication.
> Objects are another form of advanced abstaction of communication.
> 'Son, "TREES" are those things we climb.'
was splendid. It seems like we slowly are approaching a common
understanding. Great! (but trust there will be setbacks).
.....................................................................
Re David's post of 16 Jan where he wrote:
> Bodvar's posting on the semiotics of Charle Piecrce was equally
> excellent. Like Maggie's posting, it shows that the evolution of the
> static levels of the MOQ is an evolution of consciousness. Or even
> better, the levels are different forms of awarness.
Thanks David.
I have been reluctant to use the 'consciousness' and 'awareness'
terms, but your grasp of the quality idea seems so firm that I trust
that you don't fill them with the SOM load of "awakening to
consciousness/awareness of o-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-e reality", but see it
in the gradual refinement of value (or sign-interpreting-abstraction)
context.
> I refer to BO's marriage of semiotics and the MOQ, where the
> biological level relies on the inorganic level as its groundstuff,
> as the signs that it interpets.
Right. Let me just repeat that Peirce's semiotics is comparable only
to Quality's "trinity" version of ZAMM: Quality-Subject-Object
(Sign-Subject-The World) he has no development like Pirsig's
Dynamic-Stati, that was me adding a "static sign" sequence, but
it's "just a nudge away".
> And so it is with the social level, which relies on the
> biological for the signs that it can interpet. Naturally, it follows
> that the intellect interpets the signs from the social level. There
> is a point in Pirsig's paper, "SOD and V", where he says that the
> scientific method always insists on biological proofs, sight and the
> other senses, but has left out social proofs as an effort to
> eradicate prejudices from the process. But if semiotics is an
> accurate picture of the MOQ, then that is a case of the intellect
> avoiding its main reality and trying to read signs from an
> inappropriate level.
With the addition of the said "static sign levels" Semiosis becomes
another MOQ and, yes, you are right, Pirsig's thesis - in the SODAV
paper and in his philosophy - is that (SOM is) Intellect claiming to
be able to read signs directly from nature (the Inorganic and Organic
levels), but that that is impossible; their signs has been filtered
through the Social level.
> I think Pirsig is saying that even natural
> science has to be mediated also thru the social level because thats
> were the intellect gets its signs, because the social level is the
> context in which the intellectual level can exist. Maybe thats why
> the intellect can create such an obviously immoral thing as a
> fussion bomb?
Exactly!
> Bo, is it right to say that for the intellectrual
> patterns must be interpeted thru all the prior levels or is the
> social level the only context for the intellect? I think the former,
> but yours is the first understandable explaination of semiotics I've
> ever read.
Provided I understand your question (has something been
deleted?). Quality is experience and we ARE all levels (as you
described so well in your message of...), but our intellect component
has so long dominated our outlook as SOM's "consciousness" residing
somwhere inside our brains watching "the world" and governing our
actions. But that's a fallacy; the Intellect of MOQ is a much more
humble - yet more true - entity only able to perceive the world as
handed over by the Social level, but adding a new turn of the value
screw in the process.
Your information about Peirce was very interesting. The James
connection I've never heard about, but I positively know that Pirsig
did not know Peirce when writing his books, which is very strange
because he - if any - could have been an inspiration. Yet, Pirsig
wrote ZAMM - I guess - in the early seventies (the motorcycle trip
took place in 1968) and Peice was practically unknown up to the
Nineties. My informant Jesper Hoffmeyer ("Minding Nature")
wrote about him in 1994.
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:49 BST