Platt,
We eat the menus that are written in the language of biology, the one
whose words are preparations of dead plants and animals. It is a menu to
us because we are cut off from the full meaning of the biological
language of nourishment. To acquire the ability to grasp the full
meaning requires a change of consciousness.
Most post-modernists are secular, so they miss the turn that, though
everything is text, one needs an appeal to mysticism for the fact that
the texts are created and consumed (read). That is, one needs DQ as well
as sq.
My main source for the "everything is language" motif is Georg
Kuhlewind, in particular his books "Becoming Aware of the Logos" and
"The Logos-Structure of the World". I would not call him a
post-modernist, but I think a journey through post-modernism makes it
easier to break SOM habits, and so appreciate his ideas.
There is a case where there is clearly no need for a language/reality
distinction, by the way, and that is mathematics. Tie this in with "the
unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in physics and I think there
is an interesting metaphysical avenue to explore.
- Scott
Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Wim, Scott:
>
> WIM:
>
>>You seem to misunderstand me here: I meant that the
>>map/territory-distinction should NOT be seen as a 'first' (metaphysical)
>>'cut of Reality', but as a metaphor. I agree with your comments: that 'the
>>map/territory split is really the same as the subject/object split' and
>>that the MoQ acknowledges these splits as secondary splits of Reality AFTER
>>the first split into Dynamic and static quality has been made and static
>>quality has been split into the four levels. Pirsig wrote indeed (not in
>>'Lila' as far as I know, but only in www.moq.org/forum/emmpaper.html) that
>>inorganic and biological patterns of values can be associated with
>>'objects' and social and intellectual patterns of values with 'objects'.
>>
>
> Thanks for clarifying your position. For reference purposes, you'll find
> the association of the value levels with subjects and objects in 'Lila,"
> Chap. 24, as follows:
>
> "The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between intellect
> and society, subject and object, mind and matter, by embedding all of
> them in a larger system of understanding. Objects are inorganic and
> biological values; subjects are social and intellectual values."
>
> Interesting that Pirsig refers to the MOQ, and by implication any
> metaphysics, as a "system of understanding." Scott seems to argue
> that there's no difference between systems of understanding and the
> raw data of experience:
>
> SCOTT:
>
>>What we perceive (its form) is created by the perceiving. In other
>>words, all of reality is language.
>>
>
> If all of reality is language, why don't we just eat menus? I must be
> missing something. Do I detect a bit of postmodernist "it's all text" in
> your view, Scott?
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
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 - 16:06:29 BST