Gary,
Gary Jaron wrote:
> Hi Scott & all,
>
> From: Scott R <jse885@spinn.net>
>
>>Lastly, a while back I objected to the sentiment of "anything languaged
>>is not the thing itself", not because it is untrue (the English word
>>"cow" is not a cow) but in the thought that there is any thing (which
>>excludes Quality, which is not a thing) that is not itself another sign
>>in another language, albeit one not of spoken words or marks on paper. I
>>feel the "the map is not the territory" mantra is SOM-ish.
>>
>>- Scott
>>
> Gary's response: "The map is not the territory" [Which was first stated by
> Alfred Korzybski in 1933 in his book Science and Sanity.] is not
> Subject/Object Metaphysics. It is very much the acknowledgment of
> transcending SOM. Pirsig didn't invent the Mind-Body split, which is
> another way of saying SOM. The essence of SOM is that the Mind/the
> observer/the Subject is different from the body/the observed/the object. To
> say that 'the word is not the thing' or 'the map is not the territory' is to
> say that all human efforts are just that, attempt by humans to talk about a
> pre-human Reality which does exist outside of our minds and before our
> linguistic analysis of that Reality. The phrases are just reminding the
> listener and the speaker that we are always making maps and discussing maps.
> The Territory is Reality and it is before human language and can not be
> contained by human language. The phrase is the acknowledgment of that
> permanent realization. The territory is always bigger, more complex, more
> intricate, more and more and more than any single human statement.
The phrase is also presupposing a SOM assumption: that there is a
language-independent reality, and it tends to reinforce the SOM notion
that statements are true to the extent that they correspond to this reality.
What I suggest we think instead is that objective reality -- what we
perceive -- cannot go beyond our language. We cannot perceive that for
which we have no concepts. We create the form of what we perceive.
Then we can consider that this perceived reality is itself a language,
but one which we do not know how to read. We only perceive its syntax,
its outer form. If we could read it, we would read it as Quality
speaking to us. That is transcendence. (Barfield's argument is that
pre-intellect people did have some ability to read it, it's just us in
our current stage that have lost the ability. But one must emphasize, as
Barfield does, that the next stage is not that of going back. No
pre/trans fallacy need apply.)
But, I notice that the way I said this, sounds like falling back into
the Appearance/Reality distinction. I think this may be overcome by
saying there is no further *thing* behind the appearances, rather there
is just Quality, a non-thing. Not that I really (sic) know.
MOQ is
> all about realizing that Quality [to use a Classic term] or the Tao [to use
> a Romantic term] is the totality of existence. It can be differentiate into
> many connected parts. [It is all a hierarchy of Holons (a thing which is
> both a whole and a part, not merely one or the other.)--i.e. a Holarchy.]
> Since Quality/Tao is everything it therefore gives everything its structure,
> those stable patterns of Quality. Thus we get the physical form of the
> Universe. We are a form of Quality who observes other forms of Quality. We
> are the observer and the observed. We are the subject and the object.
> Under MOQ and Taoism, there is no difference between matter and energy, mind
> and body. It is all forms/patterns of Quality/Tao.
Yes, but let's add to Quality and Tao: "In the beginning was the Logos".
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:20 BST