Hello everyone
diana@hongkong.com wrote:
>
> Squad
>
> No 2 was the winner so our program this month will be:
>
> In their books ''Metaphors We Live By'' and "Philosophy In The Flesh"
> George Lakoff and Mark Johnson make the following points: "The mind is
> inherently embodied. Thought is mostly unconscious. Abstract concepts
> are largely metaphorical."
>
> According to Lakoff, metaphor appears to be a neural mechanism that allows
> us to adapt the neural systems used in sensory-motor activity to create forms
> of abstract reason. "If this is correct, as it seems to be," he says, "our
> sensory-motor systems thus limit the abstract reasoning that we can perform.
> Anything we can think or understand is shaped by, made possible by, and
> limited by our bodies, brains, and our embodied interactions in the
> world. This is what we have to theorize with."
>
> Assuming there is value to this theory: Let's explore the relationship
> between metaphors and the MoQ ? Are they primary to its development? If
> so, which ones, how many, etc? The goal being
> if an understandable metaphor or a series of metaphors could be found it
> might possibly be the elusive "catechism of the MoQ"
"Jonathan B. Marder" wrote:
>
> Hi Focs,
>
> Maybe I'm being dense here, but I don't see how something abstract can
> be anything other than metaphorical.
>
> Abstract patterns don't have any "material" existence of their own, and
> thus have to be represented by substitute material patterns e.g. written
> symbols, sound bytes, magnetic bits etc.
>
> By this way of thinking, the whole of the MoQ or any other idea is
> nothing but metaphor.
>
> Jonathan Marder
>
> PS. If anyone is interested, there may be an interesting parallel:
> the requirement for material symbols to embody ideas is like the
> requirement for material entities to embody any form of energy, a
> concept central to Quantum Theory. Is this a good metaphor?
Hi Jonathan
An excellent metaphor! It seems to me Lakoff is saying nothing new, and
I agree with you that any idea or abstract thought is metaphorical, and
indeed all reality is ultimately metaphorical in nature. Speaking of
quantum theory, Niels Bohr understood this problem well and wrote (in
1929):
"...an interesting example of ambiguity is provided by the phrase used
to express the failure of the causal mode of description, namely, that
one speaks of a free choice on the part of nature. Indeed, properly
speaking, such a phrase requires the idea of an external observer, the
existence of which, however, is denied already by the word nature. We
here come upon a fundamental feature in the general problem of
knowledge, and we must realize that, by the very nature of matter, we
shall always have last recourse to a word picture, in which the words
themselves are not further analyzed. As emphasized in the article, we
must, indeed, remember that the nature of our consciousness brings about
a complementary relationship, in all domains of knowledge, between the
analysis of a concept and its immediate application." (The Philosophical
Writings of Niels Bohr)
We might wish to focus on the "word picture", or metaphor, if you will,
of language which may not be further analyzed, and the goal of this
month's
topic is to uncover a catechism of Quality, but right off we are in
trouble for the
goal itself overshadows any hope of actually obtaining it. A metaphor is
an intellectual pattern of value in Robert Pirsig's MOQ. However:
"The right art," cried the Master, "is purposeless, aimless! The more
obstinately you try to learn how to shoot the arrow for the sake of
hitting the goal, the less you will succeed in the one and the further
the other will recede. What stands in your way is that you have a much
too willful will. You think that what you do not do yourself does not
happen." (Zen in the Art of Archery, page 31)
According to the Master, the moment we set a goal for ourselves, we have
failed. What is it that separates art from "the right art"? Nothing more
than intellectual
choice, or the notion of free will. Only by becoming purposeless and
aimless can the target be hit rightly. Examine the Master's last
sentence carefully. This would seem the downfall of the logical
positivists, with which Pirsig seems to agree:
"I think, furthermore, that all his metaphysical mountain climbing did
absolutely nothing to further either our understanding of what Quality
is or of what the Tao is. Not a thing." (ZMM, page 230)
So. Just what is it that's being said when "the right art" is discussed?
Very simply put, the right art is the best, arising spontaneously and
without forethought, seemingly from nowhere, something I touched upon in
last
month's discussion. The right art is not only applicable to archery and
metaphysics but to life itself. The Master is saying that we don't have
to pick and choose; we don't have to win and lose. But if we insist on
picking and choosing, we are trapped in winning and losing.
The embodied metaphor of language cannot be analyzed further, for who is
it that can step outside of language to do the analyzing? Therefore, it
would seem any hope of uncovering a catechism of the MOQ in this
intellectual fashion is doomed to failure.
Dan
Nobody here will ever find me
But I will always be around.
Just like the words I leave behind me
I'm gonna live forever now.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST