From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 01 2004 - 19:23:55 BST
Ham
we are certainly not very interested in how
big you ego is, I am embarrassed for you,
in my opinion from your posts you have
yet to grasp the MOQ only then could
we examine if you have found any contradictions
or improvements. Always open to new ideas-
haven't seen any yet though. Maybe you are
not expresing yourself very well. Pirsig
explains MOQ in relation to his SOM analysis
of the entire history of western philosophy.
We all know where MOQ diverges from SOM,
explain yourself in relation to the tradition &
let us work out how it differs to the MOQ, we
have no shortage of analytical skiils here despite
your insults, come on get your act together,
where sit you between monist, dualist, realist,
non-realist, phenomenologist, existentialist, platonist,
reductionist, determinist, pragmatist, post-modernist,
critical realist, french, german, anglo-saxon schools,
analytical, hermeneutical, nihilist, essentialist? -what
kind, how would you answer Derrida, Bhaskar,
Bataille, Rorty, Taylor, Lacan, Saussure, Lyotard,
Habermas, etc, etc, etc, paint us a picture of what
you have to offer in some broader context please,
because the MOQ context is one in which you
have no bearings, can you find another?
regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:29 AM
Subject: RE; MD the individual in the MOQ
> From Ham Priday to Arlo Bensinger
> Sent Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2004, 9:30 PM
>
> You asked:
> > My question is, restated, from where does man get this "discriminative
> capacity"
> > and ability to "give meaning to his life-experience"? Is it "hard wired"
> into
> > the brain (a biological affordance), or does it arise out of "learning"
a
> > symbolic system?
>
> The one thing I can say for certain is that it did not arise out of
learning
> a symbolic system. I believe that man is unique among creatures in that
his
> sensibility of Value is a connection to Essence. This is not to imply
that
> man is a "special creation" in the biblical sense. From the time
> perspective, Homo sapiens can be said to have evolved from simpler
species,
> as do all creatures. Teleogically, however, man is endowed with what
might
> be considered the "divine gift" of Freedom, the purpose of which is to
> affirm the Value of Essence.
>
> The fact that man uses language to express his concepts and feelings to
> others, and that he often "thinks" in words (or word symbols) does not
mean
> that words and symbols constitute the "essence" of his thoughts and
> feelings. To equate symbology with meaning is to impugn the credibility
of
> meaning. This is a fallacious kind of logic aimed at making all
> propositions reducible to numbers and equations that can be analyzed
> "objectively". (I see a lot of semiotic word use in the MOQ Discuss
> postings. This approach cannot being us closer to the meaning of a
> philosophy since it has already moved a step away from it. It reminds me
of
> the story about people laughing at the punch-line of Joke no. 24 in the
> book. It gives everyone the satisfaction of identifying a solution
without
> understanding its meaning.)
>
> > If the individual's personal tastes and proclivities "includes
influences
> from
> > the social milieu", does it include things that are not? If so, how?
>
> The conditional sense of Value can be only applied to that which is
> experienced, including ideas experienced as part of the thought process.
> With the possible exception of the meditative state of the mind, as
> allegedly attained by Eastern mystics, I don't see how it would be
possible
> to sense Value in the absence of its existential source.
>
> > Media is entirely "symbols". To "mediate" is to stand between. This is
> > semiotics. As for "society", would it exist without semiotics? How?
>
> I don't agree that media is entirely symbols. I see it largely consisting
> of propositions or ideas. Again, the use of language and dramatic nuances
> to express them should not be understood as their content but their means
of
> communication. Are you not confusing the message with the messenger here?
>
> I said:
> > However, except for the culture's
> > influence on values, intellectual freedom is not affected.
>
> To which you replied:
> > Intellectual freedom is not a process of valuation?
>
> No. Intellectual freedom is the ability to decide on a choice and act upon
> it. Valuation is a function of sensibility rather than the intellect; it
> may or may not lead to a decision.
>
> You also asked:
> > Would an individual have any cognition of "reality" if that individual
had
> not
> > semiotic system (such as language) with which to work?
>
> I think I answered that under your first question above.
>
> > If so, how would that individual "represent" reality?
>
> How the individual "represents" reality is secondary and minor in
importance
> to how he "experiences" reality. Why are you so keen on the transmission
> aspects of experience?
>
> You continue:
> > Pirsig mentions the idea of an amoeba responding to heat with simply an
> > awareness of "low quality". Since the amoeba has no semiotic system (no
> > "language"), can that amoeba ever know the concept of "heat". Man, with
a
> > semiotic system at his disposal, would respond immediately to "low
> quality",
> > but then would be able to represent symbolically this event with the
word
> > "heat". Thus, man can represent reality, but only with a semiotic
system.
>
> This is assinine. The amoeba feels heat just as man does. Excess heat
> causes pain, not a "concept of low quality".
> It is the pain, not a concept, that makes the amoeba react. This has
> nothing to do with the amoeba's inability to
> state his condition as a philosophical hypothesis. Feelings take
precedence
> over intellection, which is how both species have managed to survive!
>
> I'm afraid I have nothing more to add to this subject, Arlo.
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Wed Sep 01 2004 - 21:18:30 BST