Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Fri, 26 Sep 1997 03:36:01 +0100
Bo,
>My entries take on this summary character, but replying to each will soon
>fill every nook of my mind - not to mention my harddisk. I wonder how you
>administer the mail flow? Good advice is welcome.
I know what you mean. We just have to grap what we can and enjoy the ride. I
am out of town for the weekend and cannot fill your inbox until monday -
happy? :-)
>For Hugo:
>I think you are on to something very quality-like in your struggle to
>define Intellect as something differently from the SOM categories you
>mention. I once said that all creatures sleep, consequently even a fish has
>to 'wake up' to a reality different from unconsciousness, but this is
>impossible in a SOM context where the aware-of-objective-reality
>implication fills the consciousness concept. My own "tether" insight was
>the realization of this fact, in its time it was sheer madness, that's why
>the meeting with Pirsig was such a great event to me. Could you perhaps
>start with the "umwelt" idea to get the basics clear?
I will have to reread your essay on the tether issue. I am trying to
understand the way you and others think about the MoQ, and I am sure you all
have your difficulties in understanding what I mean. It will be that way for
a long while yet, I think, and we just have to try and ask and try again.
The "umwelt" idea is stolen from Jesper Hoffmeyer (who snapped it from Jakob
von Uexkull I believe) - the scandinavians on board may know him. As I
understand it, the umwelt is the world as it is in relation to a subject
(eg. an organism). It is in this respect of making the subject-object
relation explicit that I find it valuable, with the term umwelt we have a
word for 'the world as it is to a subject', the phenomenal world or
subjective universe of organisms. Every subject has its own umwelt, this is
what 'meaning' is about, and what value is about. The organism-in-its-umwelt
is the entire more or less stable pattern of relations which SOM has tried
to resolve into subject and objects. The field of semiotics is still
fighting to come to terms with this, Hoffmeyer has a lot of good ideas but
most semioticians are lost somewhere in the svamp of SOM. By the way I dont
think Hoffmeyer uses Pirsig (I haven't seen references to Pirsig, but then
again - I havent seen any references to Pirsig anywhere), I think he has
come across this fruitfull ground by using semiotics in close connection
with the biological dynamics. I will have to read him again soon. (He has
papers online on his website at
http://www.molbio.ku.dk/MolBioPages/abk/PersonalPages/Jesper
So, if we agree on that there are subjects (organisms, people, me) in the
world, I believe ideas such as "umwelt" and semiotics (or some similar
relationary language) is needed in order not to fall into or get stuck in
some SOM. And Hoffmeyers example indicates that leaving ourselves as objects
of inquiry for a while, and taking a good look at other living beings might
ease our way forward towards some kind of MoQ.
This is all I can do for now, got to go.
Hugo
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:56 CEST