From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 12 2003 - 22:24:46 BST
Hi
Language all the way down, perceptions full of value judgements,
intelligence all over the place, I'm sure we've taken a long walk away from
physicalism somewhere. My main point below was to break up what looks
to me like rather dogmatic thinking over the idea of an intellectual level.
Mainly as a support to some of Scott's inclinations towards putting
intelligence/
purpose back into nature/cosmos. I think DQ really calls for a rethink about
time, that we may be wrong to think cause (past) produces effect (now).
I am trying to think of the potential of the idea that the future
(many-possible) sacrifices its
potential to produce finite(this-world)/now. It is a way of dealing with the
many-world
nature of quantum-potential without suggesting that there must actually be a
creation of many
worlds every time quantum potential collapses. You see the future in quantum
theory (FIELDS)
exists before the now (particle/event). And this is true of our actual
experience, our awareness
of the future alters what we do in the present. I think this can solve the
anthropic principle
problem because it could allow for a sort of trial and error testing of the
forward march
of the cosmos, because design is clearly not what this world exhibits, so
that the now of the cosmos
goes hand in hand with a certain set of possible futures, and these are
real, in just the way
that a single electron passing through 2 slits interacts with the
possibility of going through either,
and influences what happens in the event. To me DQ is all about this
openness, but it is not situationless.
To write Hamlet lots of SQ things need to be available. But you don't have
to write Hamlet, you can write
something else, but hey somehow Hamlet is an option you have given the right
SQ that Shakespeare had
available. Does anyone follow this? Without this knid of thing we would have
infinity not a finite world
of process.
regards
David M
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: MD Intellectual level - New letter from Pirsig
> Hey David,
>
> Okay, I think I see what you are saying.
>
> David said:
> What I am trying to provoke is a discussion of this strange ability of
beings to differentiate between aspects of their experience such as the
tiger's food / non-food distinction. Or the moth's mate / non-mate
distinction. This implies the kind of meaning-like treatment of perceived
aspects of their experience that we usually only associate with language and
Derrida's difference. I am starting to think that I am unable to draw a line
between the way I handle symbols and the way I handle so-called perceived
objects.
>
> Matt:
> This is the thick of it, right? What I would say (being the Rortyan
pragmatist), is that its no big deal to not be able to draw a line between
the handling of symbols and the handling of perceived objects. This is
because pragmatists don't think of language as quasi-divine like Derrida
seems to think some of the time, which I think he picked up from Heidegger.
I think the path you are going down is a good one. Rorty tries to assuage
the fears of losing another god (first God, then Reason, then Science, then
History, now Language), by redescribing language as a tool for coping with
our environment. To ubiquitize this in Pirsigian terms, all static patterns
are in the business of coping with their environment. One kind of static
pattern (to ad hocly separate it from the rest) evolved a tool called
"visual perception". Then, as this static pattern (we'll call it "animals")
proliferated and diversified, a static pattern arose that (after ad hocly
separating it from the re
> st) evolved a tool caled "language" (call them "humans").
>
> You see what I'm doing here. I think when you say "handle symbols" and
"handle perceived objects," I think your use of a coping metaphor to be dead
on. But when you talk about "non-verbal language," I think it needlessly
confusing. I think it better to say "non-verbal tools" and "verbal tools".
Don't get me wrong, you can ubiquitize "language" to go all the way down to
rocks. Its very easy to do that with Pirsig's talk of static patterns. You
just say, "Yeah, rocks have a language that they use to cope with other
rocks. We sum up this language in the discipline of physics." Same thing
about biological patterns (physiology), social patterns (sociology,
political science), and intellectual patterns (literary criticism, history,
philosophy). The point that the pragmatist makes is that these languages
are tools that the static patterns have evolved to help them deal with other
static patterns.
>
> When you ask, "What was our 'experience of a tree' before the word tree?"
the pragmatist says that we will probably never know except to extrapolate
from the behaviors of other animals who appear to not have created a
linguistic tool for coping. The pragmatist's deflationary line on this is
that, even if we were somehow to find out, it probably wouldn't tell us
anything too important, nothing about "human nature" or "the bounds of
possibility" which is what people are typically after when they spend too
much time thinking about that question and taking it seriously. The
pragmatist says that once you create a tool in your toolbox and keep using
it, you can't get rid of it except by a long and torturous process. And as
long as you have it, you won't be able to experience anything except through
its lens. For instance, take your arm. Its a tool that you use. You can
get rid of it (though in this case, it isn't a long process, simply
torturous). When you do, you will expe
> rience the world much differently because you will be coping with it
differently. And you can't find out what it is truly like to experience the
world without your arm unless you actually got rid of it. The old adage
"You don't know until you've actually been there" is in point here.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> 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 : Sun Oct 12 2003 - 22:26:52 BST