Hi Platt et al
Platt wrote:
> Since the bulk of your post stressed the value--indeed necessity--
> of SOM, your final paragraph came as somewhat of a surprise.
> You wrote:
>
> “You can believe whatever you wish. The feedback processes,
> sourced in harmonics analysis, add quality and since the
> feedback is sourced ‘out there’ so we can make the linkage of
> ‘quality=reality’ but always with the method of analysis in that it is
> the method that sets the context within which we find/create
> meaning.”
>
> By which I take you to mean that the MOQ is as much a legitimate
> metaphysics as SOM. Further, your acceptance of a basic MOQ
> principle seemed to be evidenced when you wrote at the end of
> your GOMGM paper:
>
> “We will always be able to find meaning in anything once we pass
> our analysis beyond the INITIAL DICHOTOMY. By this I mean that
> once we think something is ‘OF VALUE’ or could be ‘OF VALUE’
> we shift into dichotomous analysis and that part of our brain
> assumes there is means as a fundamental!” (my emphasis).
>
> In other words, if I interpret you correctly, from an state of Quality
> (pure experience) our initial slice of reality is to determine whether
> we are in a situation of high or low quality FOLLOWED by the
> basic A/not A division. Or, as Pirsig says in describing his famous
> hot stove example:
>
> “Later the person may generate some oaths to describe this low
> value, but the value will always come first, the oaths second.
> Without the primary low valuation, the secondary oaths will not
> follow.” (Lila, Chap. 5)
>
> Quality first (value), oaths second (dichotomous analysis). Is that
> the way you see it?
>
not explicitly. There is a development path at work (or the method
determines one) such that there is an unconscious level of processing prior
to the expression and that would 'fit' the qualitative emphasis.
Charles Peirce's expresses this in his semiotics as as 'qualisign', what he
would call firstness IN firstness. In this sense 'you' and your experience
of 'redness' are inseperable, everything is 'red', even you! as you 'grok'
the experience.
The expression of all of these feelings is an act to communicate to others
in the species and when we do that we have to recognise THEIR experiences
(the theory of mind etc). To communicate we use analogies, metaphors etc but
at the specific level we use particularisation, using as word from a
language and so 'naturally' work with 1:many dichotomisations (as in 'this
colour' (the one) is different to others (the many where the many is
reducable to another colour)).
I have fleshed this out in response to James Evans' note on Deconstruction
and Quality.
> Finally, I’d like to toss in a quote from zoologist and Nobel prize
> winner Konrad Lorenz that confirms your implied suggestion that
> the initial value dichotomy goes way back in evolutionary history:
>
> “What the organism leans about its environment can be
> expressed in the simple phrase, ‘It’s better here’ or ‘It’s not so
> good here.’” (Unfortunately I’ve lost the source for this quote.)
>
yup A/~A :-)
best,
Chris
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST