Re: MD The individual in the MOQ

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Aug 31 2004 - 06:30:07 BST

  • Next message: msoe@microsoft.com: "hello"

    Ham Priday to Arlo Bensinger
    Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 12:15 PM
    Subject: Re: MD The individual in the MOQ

    > Greetings Ham,
    >
    > > Man -- you and I individually, not as a group species -- is
    > >the primary "dynamic agent" in the realization of Value through the
    exercise
    > >of personal freedom.
    >
    > Questions:
    >
    > Would a hypothetical "feral human" (raised by wolves, if you will)
    > experience this Value in any way compatible or associative with an
    > "individual" who partakes in a given social milieu?

    Sensibility to Value, unlike empirical knowledge, is probably present to
    some degree in all living creatures; but only man has the discriminative
    capacity (and intellectual freedom) to choose those values which give
    meaning to his life-experience. I have stated in my thesis that realization
    of conditional (existential) value is not universal but is unique for each
    individual and will vary in accordance with the individual's "personal
    tastes and proclivities". These contingencies would of course include
    influences from the "social milieu" in which the individual is raised; so
    that in your hypothetical example one would expect to see less
    discrimination in the feral human's choice of values and a less finely tuned
    sense of value. Measured by objective testing, your "Wolfman's" rating for
    cognitive intellegence would probably equate to his level of value
    sensibility. But this is sheer speculation on my part. I would certainly
    hope that Wolfman's values would be different from your own, if that's what
    you're getting at.

    > Do you feel different cultures extend different affordances to action (not
    > just through prohibitive laws and socially-valued activity, but also by
    > making certain symbolic relations salient? For example, a culture that has
    > several words for "snow" versus one, a culture that recognizes the number
    > "zero" versus one that does not.

    I must confess that I'm not up on semiotics, and I really don't see their
    relevance to this concept. As innuendos, linguistics and symbols play a
    role in society and the media, I guess; so do sex and rap music. But how
    does that relate to the sense of value? I don't recognize the term
    "affordances" [nor does Webster's], so I'm not sure what you're asking. If
    the question is whether freedom of choice is restricted by the traditions of
    a specific culture, the answer is yes. However, except for the culture's
    influence on values, intellectual freedom is not affected. I recall Pirsig
    (who apparently likes to think of himself as an anthropologist) mentioning
    that the Eskimo has 20 words for "snow" in order to demonstrate the
    difference in values between cultures. The "zero vs. one" anecdote seems
    more applicable to cognitive (quantitative) knowledge than to Value. Again,
    values will differ from culture to culture as they differ between
    individuals, and the native language tends to reflect such differences.

    > > This core idea of Essentialism is missing in Pirsig's
    > >MOQ, and extending Quality to absoluteness does not work as a teleology.
    > >Since man is the subject of all experience, and cognizance of reality is
    > >proprietary to the individual
    >
    > Would the individual be cognizant of reality in the absence of
    > socially-constructed semiotic systems, or is it that partaking in
    > socially-constructed semiotic systems allows the individual to create an
    > internal, symbolic representation of "reality"?
    >
    > Which is pretty much a restatement of my first question.

    Good! Because I've answered your first question in full and wouldn't even
    attempt to decipher this one.

    > >, this must be the starting point of any
    > >philosophy.
    > >
    > >Hence, I must take issue with the MOQer's insistence in putting Quality
    > >first. Neither Quality nor Value can exist without individual
    sensibility,
    > >and nothing exists without a Creator.
    >
    >
    > Can individual sensibility exist with a social semiotic to define it?

    Damned if I know. If you can come up with a semiotic definition for
    sensibility, I'd love to see what it looks like.

    Essentially (still),
    Ham
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > 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 Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 06:30:28 BST