From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 31 2004 - 20:21:16 BST
Thanks Arlo, very useful.....and so the MOQ begins
by suggesting a new metaphysics that wil uncover/re-cover
a whole new world of restrictions/possibilities, helping us escape the old
SOM ones.
Hey, Arlo have you read Marcuse's One Dimensional Man?
Interesting links to P's SOM criticisms....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: MD The individual in the MOQ
> Hello Ham (all)...
>
> Ham answered my "feral human" hypothetical...
>
> > 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.
>
> My question is, restated, from where does man get this "discriminative
capacity"
> and ability to "give meaning to his life-experience"? Is it "hard wired"
into
> the brain (a biological affordance), or does it arise out of "learning" a
> symbolic system?
>
> Affordance, sorry, a term used in critical theory, means what you have
surmised,
> something that is made "doable" by something else.
>
>
> 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;
>
> If the individual's personal tastes and proclivities "includes influences
from
> the social milieu", does it include things that are not? If so, how?
>
>
> > 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.
>
> But one would see a measurably "human" discrimination of Value?
>
>
> I would certainly
> > hope that Wolfman's values would be different from your own, if that's
what
> you're getting at.
>
> Oh, absolutely.
>
>
> > I must confess that I'm not up on semiotics, and I really don't see
their
> > relevance to this concept.
>
> Semiotics, which I think are quite relevant, extends that "man" thinks
through
> (not "with") symbols. And these symbols, a semiotic system, not only shape
and
> skew one's "individual cognition", they are the entirety of his cognition.
>
> Simply, as Wittgenstein proposed, man cannot think outside his language,
because
> he thinks *through* his language. Any internal system (memory, cognition,
ego,
> whatever you want to call it) is a symbolic representation of reality, as
> filtered through one's semiotic systems (language).
>
> This is discussed when Pirsig states in ZMM:
>
> "We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of awareness and
call that
> handful of sand the world." Pirsig continues, "Once we have the handful of
> sand, the world of which we are conscious, a process of discrimination
goes to
> work on it. This is the knife. We divide the sand into parts. This and
that.
> Here and there. Black and white. Now and then. The discrimination is the
> division of the conscious universe into parts." And importantly, "it's
> necessary to see that part of the landscape, inseparable from it, which
must be
> understood, is a figure in the middle of it, sorting sand into piles. To
see
> the landscape without seeing this figure is not to see the landscape at
all."
>
> You can only divide "experience" into "black and white" if you have a
language
> (semiotic system) that values (1) these categories, and (2) their polar
> opposition. To use the snow example, an Eskimo could easily divide
"experience"
> into "qanik" and "anijo", since their language makes this categorization
> salient. Pirsig continues in LILA discussing the "green flash of the sun",
> something he only saw once it became salient, or valuable, to him.
>
> Your categorizations of "individual" and "collective" are defined through
your
> language and culture, because our culture makes these terms salient. But
they
> are illusory, as are the the categorizations of "black and white" and
"qanik
> and anijo". They exist only within the semiotic system. This is what
Anthony
> and Pirsig were discussing about the "killing of the self", to see these
> categories as illusory. The greatest goal is to see that these walls,
primarily
> the one that separates the individual from "the world" are imaginary.
>
> That is not to say that they have no value within a particular culture as
useful
> ways to organize experience. But that is all they are, useful constructs
not
> absolute categories.
>
>
> 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?
>
> Media is entirely "symbols". To "mediate" is to stand between. This is
> semiotics. As for "society", would it exist without semiotics? How?
>
>
> 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.
>
> Restriction is the opposite of affordance. Thus, "traditions" (something
that
> can only exist through a semiotic system) both restrict and afford certain
> activities and perceptions.
>
>
> However, except for the culture's
> > influence on values, intellectual freedom is not affected.
>
> Intellectual freedom is not a process of valuation?
>
>
> 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.
>
> Systems of "quantitative knowledge" represent what is "valued" in any
particular
> culture. It also demonstrates that we are blind to what is not valued. Was
no
> one in Europe capable of seeing the number zero? Or did it not exist
because
> the "persons sorting the sand into piles" had not categoriztion for "zero"
> within their semiotic systems?
>
>
>
> Again,
> > values will differ from culture to culture as they differ between
> > individuals, and the native language tends to reflect such differences.
> >
>
> Agree.
>
>
> > > 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.
> >
>
> Let me restate, just to be clear:
>
> Would an individual have any cognition of "reality" if that individual had
not
> semiotic system (such as language) with which to work?
>
> If so, how would that individual "represent" reality?
>
> Pirsig mentions the idea of an amoeba responding to heat with simply an
> awareness of "low quality". Since the amoeba has no semiotic system (no
> "language"), can that amoeba ever know the concept of "heat". Man, with a
> semiotic system at his disposal, would respond immediately to "low
quality",
> but then would be able to represent symbolically this event with the word
> "heat". Thus, man can represent reality, but only with a semiotic system.
>
> If you disagree, how else does one do it?
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Me too. :-)
>
> Arlo
>
>
> 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 : Wed Sep 01 2004 - 01:13:36 BST