From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jul 22 2005 - 17:46:21 BST
Ham, Platt, all
>Apart from particular notions of what the objects of perception are and
>what
>language a person speaks, do you really believe that the thought processes
>of a native Ugandan are significantly different than the thought processes
>of a North American?
Paul: It depends on what you mean by thought processes. Do you mean to
distinguish between the process of thinking and the thoughts? If so, what
is there of philosophical interest to "thought processes" minus the
thoughts?
If you mean the biological activity, then, no, no significant difference.
If you mean the intellectual patterns, then - Different? I would expect so.
Significantly? I don't know any native Ugandans so can't comment.
My basic question to you is - did Neanderthals reason?
>You offer the example of "a human born into isolation". Do you believe
>that
>thought (e.g., cognition and reasoning) cannot occur without language or a
>cultural heritage?
Paul: I don't equate thought with cognition, it's too broad a word, it
includes too many other things, some of which I would think are primary some
of which aren't. Yes, I think reasoning cannot occur without language. You
see, I don't think, like some people do (not saying you), that a dog that
lifts its paw because it gets food or a dolphin that jumps through hoops for
fish is demonstrating something like reason. Nor do I think that when man
learned how to start fires he had reasoned it out. I think reasoning is a
culturally learned skill.
That the "isolated" human being can only experience
>without thinking? Putting it another way, is it your position that the
>consciousness or mind of a human being is no more than a reflection of his
>or her acculturation?
Paul: I think *intellectual consciousness* is cultural i.e. I think
abstract symbol manipulation is a learned skill. This is what I refer to as
mind. I think consciousness as a synonym for experience is primary but I
wouldn't say "consciousness or mind" as if they are necessarily the same
thing like you do. Mind can mean almost anything, particularly in
philosophy, so it isn't a good word unless you define it clearly and not
just assume that everyone uses it in the same way. I also struggle with
what is consistently meant by consciousness.
>If it is your belief that the individual contributes nothing of his own to
>society, how do you explain the intellectual advance of a culture?
Paul: New intellectual patterns are created by the response of the existing
static patterns of an individual human being to DQ. That is how cultures
advance intellectually. Or as Pirsig puts it in SODV ("Conceptually
Unknown" is a word he suggests as another term for DQ)
"I think science generally agrees that there is something that has to enter
into experiments other than the measuring instruments, and I think science
would agree that "Conceptually Unknown" is an acceptable name for it. What
science might not agree on is that this Conceptually Unknown is aesthetic.
But if the Conceptually Unknown were not aesthetic why should the scientific
community be so attracted to it? If you think about it you will see that
science would lose all meaning without this attraction to the unknown. A
good word for the attraction is "curiosity." Without this curiosity there
would never have been any science. Try to imagine a scientist who has no
curiosity whatsoever and estimate what his output will be.
This aesthetic nature of the Conceptually Unknown is a point of connection
between the sciences and the arts. What relates science to the arts is that
science explores the Conceptually Unknown in order to develop a theory that
will cover measurable patterns emerging from the unknown. The arts explore
the Conceptually Unknown in other ways to create patterns such as music,
literature, painting, that reveal the Dynamic Quality that produced them.
This description, I think, is the rational connection between science and
the arts.
In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance art was defined as high quality
endeavor. I have never found a need to add anything to that definition. But
one of the reasons I have spent so much time in this paper describing the
personal relationship of Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr in the development
of quantum theory is that although the world views science as a sort of
plodding, logical, methodical advancement of knowledge, what I saw here were
two artists in the throes of creative discovery. They were at the cutting
edge of knowledge plunging into the unknown trying to bring something out of
that unknown into a static form that would be of value to everyone."
>I'm not trying to be coy or sarcastic, Paul. It's just that I don't
>"philosophize" from an anthropological perspective. Hence, I have trouble
>coming to grips with non-anthropocentric reality theories.
Paul: No worries, Ham. If I may suggest something to you though? I
honestly don't think you have read Pirsig very closely and, if I'm right, I
think you would benefit from doing so, in terms of the discussions you have
on this site at least. It's not that this site requires everyone to know
every line in detail but if you are going to "attack" something it is better
to know what it is you are attacking to avoid wasting your time and effort,
and the time and effort of others. For example, the idea that the MOQ has
no place for individuals is, to me, a straw man constructed by you and
Platt. The fact that you think the intellectual level is described as a
"big database in the sky" just strikes me as the sort of comment made by
someone who hasn't read much of Pirsig.
On that note, I can't understand why Platt, who has read Pirsig closely,
plays the same game. Platt, you recently said:
"I think "collective consciousness" is a meaningless abstraction because
human inhabitants of this world have never been of "one mind""
And
"But to say that my unique experiences and intellectual patterns combined
with yours and that terrorist over there by the camel somehow comprise a
"collective consciousness" stretches credulity."
Now you may be talking about my and other people's interpretation of Pirsig
here and, if so, I personally find it tiresome having to constantly fight
against a caricature of my position. I've written lengthy replies to you,
Platt, about where I see the individual in terms of the MOQ and evolution
and you still come out with statements like this. Either you have a short
memory or you are being deliberately antagonistic, which is a shame because
we've had some good discussions in the past.
Regards
Paul
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 : Fri Jul 22 2005 - 23:16:15 BST