From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Sep 01 2004 - 02:29:22 BST
From Ham Priday to Arlo Bensinger
Sent Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2004, 9:30 PM
You asked:
> 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?
The one thing I can say for certain is that it did not arise out of learning
a symbolic system. I believe that man is unique among creatures in that his
sensibility of Value is a connection to Essence. This is not to imply that
man is a "special creation" in the biblical sense. From the time
perspective, Homo sapiens can be said to have evolved from simpler species,
as do all creatures. Teleogically, however, man is endowed with what might
be considered the "divine gift" of Freedom, the purpose of which is to
affirm the Value of Essence.
The fact that man uses language to express his concepts and feelings to
others, and that he often "thinks" in words (or word symbols) does not mean
that words and symbols constitute the "essence" of his thoughts and
feelings. To equate symbology with meaning is to impugn the credibility of
meaning. This is a fallacious kind of logic aimed at making all
propositions reducible to numbers and equations that can be analyzed
"objectively". (I see a lot of semiotic word use in the MOQ Discuss
postings. This approach cannot being us closer to the meaning of a
philosophy since it has already moved a step away from it. It reminds me of
the story about people laughing at the punch-line of Joke no. 24 in the
book. It gives everyone the satisfaction of identifying a solution without
understanding its meaning.)
> If the individual's personal tastes and proclivities "includes influences
from
> the social milieu", does it include things that are not? If so, how?
The conditional sense of Value can be only applied to that which is
experienced, including ideas experienced as part of the thought process.
With the possible exception of the meditative state of the mind, as
allegedly attained by Eastern mystics, I don't see how it would be possible
to sense Value in the absence of its existential source.
> 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 agree that media is entirely symbols. I see it largely consisting
of propositions or ideas. Again, the use of language and dramatic nuances
to express them should not be understood as their content but their means of
communication. Are you not confusing the message with the messenger here?
I said:
> However, except for the culture's
> influence on values, intellectual freedom is not affected.
To which you replied:
> Intellectual freedom is not a process of valuation?
No. Intellectual freedom is the ability to decide on a choice and act upon
it. Valuation is a function of sensibility rather than the intellect; it
may or may not lead to a decision.
You also asked:
> Would an individual have any cognition of "reality" if that individual had
not
> semiotic system (such as language) with which to work?
I think I answered that under your first question above.
> If so, how would that individual "represent" reality?
How the individual "represents" reality is secondary and minor in importance
to how he "experiences" reality. Why are you so keen on the transmission
aspects of experience?
You continue:
> 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.
This is assinine. The amoeba feels heat just as man does. Excess heat
causes pain, not a "concept of low quality".
It is the pain, not a concept, that makes the amoeba react. This has
nothing to do with the amoeba's inability to
state his condition as a philosophical hypothesis. Feelings take precedence
over intellection, which is how both species have managed to survive!
I'm afraid I have nothing more to add to this subject, Arlo.
Essentially yours,
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 : Wed Sep 01 2004 - 03:09:13 BST