Hi Kevin:
Thanks for explaining how I summarized your POV wrongly.
K:
> I would clarify your reduction of my message. Your reduction makes my
> point that the map _IS_ the territory and must always be so. That
> couldn't be further from my point, I'm afraid.
P:
> >KEVIN:
> >We're able to experience only what our self-constructed maps permit us to
> >experience. So we should treat everyone's unique "path" as equally valid
> >to avoid the "Dogma Trap."
K
> This might actually be the opposite of my point. We are most certainly
> capable of experience that is outside the boundaries of our current maps.
Just to show how I got the wrong idea, let me briefly reconstruct what I
thought you said. You described how different witnesses viewing the
same event process the data differently and concluded by saying, "The
data is filtered by SQ patterns of the witness." This I took to mean that
we filter experience through our different maps and thus describe the
territory of experience differently. As for treating everyone's path as
equally valid, I made that conclusion on the basis of this that you
wrote:"All paths should be considered, and chosen paths should be
equally considered as valuable, whether or not they are shared paths.
An attitude of 'my shadow on the cave wall is better than your shadow
on the cave wall' is a sad commentary on us all."
To continue with your comments on something else I wrote:
P:
> >A couple of comments. Scott, Kevin and Marco appear to say that we
> >all we can ever know are maps of reality. But if that's so, logic would
> >demand that they must already know reality because they say it's
> >incapable of being mapped.
K:
> Firstly, I would avoid the word "know", which, for me, carries a
> connotation of absoluteness or at least the absence of doubt. I'm not
> sure if there can ever be absence of doubt. A better word would be
> "perceive" or "value", perhaps.
Ah, the old "there are no absolutes" self-contradiction again, one we've
discussed on this site before. Like, the self-contradiction "It's wrong to
be certain," where the statement asserts what it denies.
> Secondly, I would put few limitations on our ability to perceive or
> value reality or even Reality. The _important_ limitations are only on our
> ability to *discuss* them. DQ cannot be discussed with any language I'm
> aware of. (maybe the Borg can discuss DQ since they share all experience
> commonly without ambiguous communication:-)
You make my point. You believe there's a reality (DQ) that "cannot be
discussed with any language, meaning you're aware of a reality that
cannot be discussed in any language.
> It could be argued that the discussion of SQ is quite meaningless. It's
> merely apples/oranges and all we can do is share without comparison.
> However, since many of us value the exchange of ideas and POV's, we must
> first recognize the limitation of the exercise, namely that all we can
> discuss is SQ. Then we can pragmatically use a metaphor like map/territory
> to make value judgments on our discussion. If the map matches the
> territory, it's deemed "useful". Perhaps more importantly, it's essential
> to find common experience (territory) before even attempting to discuss
> maps. If I'm in a deep canyon, I'll have little use for your Mountain Top
> ideas.
Nicely put.
> I like Wim's comment on this:
>
> "Words are useful if the experience they evoke somehow 'repeats' or
> 'predicts' other experience. They can help us handle that other
> experience better. The map/territory metaphor clarifies this
> relationship between two types of experience and the usefulness of one type
> of experience to handle the other type. Reading a map helps you not to get
> lost in the territory. The map/territory metaphor does not yet rule out the
> essential equivalence of both types of experience. Walking around in the
> territory may also help reading the map!"
So do I.
> Perhaps some more "walking around" is needed to further the MOQ
> discussion before quibbling over the finer points of the map. I'm
> concerned that we're dealing with vastly different experience
> (territory) amongst ourselves without recognizing it's effect on our
> discussion.
I certainly agree that our different life experiences affect our maps and
how we interpret what others tells us about their maps. Pirsig says the
same when asked how come different people have different values. It's
because of our widely different life experiences and memories. But, he
has provided us with a map, the MOQ, that explains why some values
(and attitudes) are better than others. (-:
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST