Hi Kevin,
I did read your comments on the map/territory thread with interest. For now
I think some general musings on the topic is best. Start out with putting
ideas out there without trying to focus on conclusions to be drawn.
Here are some brief musings on the how we come to make menus:
My first premise is that we are not "tabula rasa's", blank slates at birth
and we do not need Kant's "a priori's" either. All we need to realize is
that we are wet-wired with a lot of "software' from birth. Chomsky was
right, there exists 'universal grammar" wet-wired into our nervous
system/brain from birth.
So, to understand how we come to know anything the first task is to examine
how the tools we are given at birth work. We need to study the nervous
system and the biology of the sensory system. My premise is that the way
those systems handle sense data will set up a model for how it handles any
data! Including the stuff of language, the stuff we read and hear.
Once you do that you discover that the first task of the senses is to ignore
data! There is too much data impacting the senses. Each sensory system
ignores the vast majority of data and pays attention with only certain types
of data. Our nose 'ignores' the electromagnetic spectrum and does notices
scents. Our eyes ignores x-rays, gamma rays, etc, but "notices" a specific
part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Etc.
Hence we probably also ignore much of what we hear and read!
What are the rules that determine that selection process? They must be
context driven. What else?
So, the first step is the study of biology and the brain processing that is
going on to deal with that sense data. From this examination we get a model
to apply to the process of socialization that occurs when an infant
encounters its parents.
Those are just some general musings.
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin <kevin@xap.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:38 PM
Subject: RE: MD Consciousness
> Gary,
>
> I think I see your goal now. You might be interested by my thoughts in
> the Map/Territory Thread posted 8.24.2002. Perhaps that will offer some
> insight towards the "tolerance and humility" that you mentioned. A
> worthy goal. Personally, it's that view (and recognizing my own
> egotistical Dogma traps) that has been greatest message I've realized
> from MOQ so far.
>
> As to understanding "how" we believe in menus, I suspect that is a
> personal journey for each to embark on in regards to our own Static
> Patterns and rationalizations. In the sciences, perhaps psychology is
> most concerned with this. As we order our universe for oursevles, we
> assume the static patterns and rationalizations that explain our
> experience to us most effectively. The patterns build on each other in
> layers. If these layers become rigid, they can effectively color
> experience so that only Data that fits our rigid patterns is collected,
> reinforcing the rigid patterns, blocking us from a different POV. For
> example, the rational empiricist rejects experience outside the
> measurable materialism of the universe he chooses for himself. The
> mystic senses Data that attributes meaning to the material universe.
> Both are concerned with making order from chaos, but both approach the
> task with a different measuring instrument and collect different Data.
>
> Why do we believe? Pragmatically it could be stated that we accept the
> 'truths' that describe/predict as much of experience as accruately as
> possible. We need Order. We need the static patterns to cope with the
> Conceptually Unknown. Perhaps there can be no 'self' without such
> definitions/boudaries. To abandon the need to define our universe and
> our place in it, is to abandon reality (little 'r'). There is a
> tradition of mystics in most cultures, those who reject the material
> universe and enter a state of perpetual comtemplation to abandon the
> self and attain Unification/Enlightenment/Nirvana/Bliss whatever we want
> to label as Oneness with Dynamic Qaulity/Immediacy/Absolute
> Mind/God/Creation. To some, this is the definition of madness.
> Existential Angst is the pain of realization of the Conceptually
> Unknown. That chaos that seems to exist outside of our carefully
> constructed reality. We seek an end to that Angst.
>
> Is it necessary? Arguably, no. Why ask why seems to be the dominant
> reaction of most modern individuals. You live, you die, why sweat the
> details? Within the tiny realm of what is knowable, such a pursuit can
> easily be considered without function or use (beyond our own comfort and
> sanity). It's definitely a Leisure pursuit for those of us not bound to
> a subsistance lifestyle. In practical terms, any aspect of our psyche or
> self-constructed universe that doesn't adversely affect reproduction is
> going to survive through generations. It might be the meaningless
> baggage of a modern surplus socio-economic reality. Having the baggage
> (our why questions, our search for meaning) isn't proof of their value
> or 'truthfulness'.
>
> -Kevin
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST