From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Aug 30 2004 - 22:46:41 BST
Greetings Ham,
> Man -- you and I individually, not as a group species -- is
>the primary "dynamic agent" in the realization of Value through the exercise
>of personal freedom.
Questions:
Would a hypothetical "feral human" (raised by wolves, if you will)
experience this Value in any way compatible or associative with an
"individual" who partakes in a given social milieu?
Do you feel different cultures extend different affordances to action (not
just through prohibitive laws and socially-valued activity, but also by
making certain symbolic relations salient? For example, a culture that has
several words for "snow" versus one, a culture that recognizes the number
"zero" versus one that does not.
> This core idea of Essentialism is missing in Pirsig's
>MOQ, and extending Quality to absoluteness does not work as a teleology.
>Since man is the subject of all experience, and cognizance of reality is
>proprietary to the individual
Would the individual be cognizant of reality in the absence of
socially-constructed semiotic systems, or is it that partaking in
socially-constructed semiotic systems allows the individual to create an
internal, symbolic representation of "reality"?
Which is pretty much a restatement of my first question.
>, this must be the starting point of any
>philosophy.
>
>Hence, I must take issue with the MOQer's insistence in putting Quality
>first. Neither Quality nor Value can exist without individual sensibility,
>and nothing exists without a Creator.
Can individual sensibility exist with a social semiotic to define it?
Arlo
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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 Aug 30 2004 - 22:40:59 BST