From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Sep 01 2004 - 05:44:00 BST
Greetings Ham, all.
Ham, I am sorry you feel you have nothing more to add. Let me just clarify a few
"small" points :-), and then we'll "call it a day"...
> The one thing I can say for certain is that it did not arise out of learning
> a symbolic system.
In a response to Platt I think I elaborated more fully my thoughts on this.
First, I do believe there is some hard-wired aspect to human brains that imbue
them with the ability to manipulate complex symbols. Second, this ability, and
what Tomasello refers to as "ratcheting up", allowed historically for the
creation of a complete (mostly) symbolic system (primarily, language) that in
turn structures and is structured by those participating in the system.
> 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.
What I think it does mean is that nothing enters into our thoughts and feelings
that does not come in through some symbolic system. Every time something
"catches your eye" and you categorize or orientate your thoughts, first there
is direct awareness, then there is symbolic representation. The feeling of
"love" exists as it is defined and used by cultures, both large and local.
Although the direct awareness of Quality is not mediated symbolically,
everything subsequent is. And this subsequent categorization, prioritization
and/or valuation occurs through one's language. It is a distorting process.
There is no way around that.
To equate symbology with meaning is to impugn the credibility of
> meaning.
Perhaps as you use the words. As I do, "meaning" is strictly a semiotic process.
"Experience", "primary experience" or "Dynamic Quality" is not.
This is a fallacious kind of logic aimed at making all
> propositions reducible to numbers and equations that can be analyzed
> "objectively".
Not at all. I'm curious why you see it this way. Maybe another time...
(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.
Disagree. I think semiotics, and understanding what it implies, moves us towards
a better understanding of "philosophy".
> > 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.
>
To be honest, I don't understand what this means.
> > 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.
What is "media" if not symbolic representations of more primary experience?
Books are written in language (a symbolic system), audio CDs are encoded
numerical symbols of "live" musical experience. Movies are two-dimensional,
framed representations of "live" experiences. Can you think of any form of
media that is not a symbolically represented substitute for experience?
Again, the use of language and dramatic nuances
> to express them should not be understood as their content but their means of
> communication.
Again, I don't understand this.
> 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.
>
Isn't "deciding on a choice" valuation? If not, why?
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?
>
Because "experience" once represented in any symbolic system (language, art,
music, math) is immediately structured by the values and saliences of a
semiotic system.
You can "experience" reality all you want, but the second you represent that
experience in words, categories and value structures, you "sort the sand into
piles", you have less than the landscape. Also, one's language going into
"experience" shapes this selection process. And so the "individual" is not
experiencing in isolation, removed from culture and the social (what you or
Platt call the "collective"), the "individual" experiences through culture and
the social semiotic system it values.
And so... the individual can not be said to be any more separate from culture,
than culture be separate from the individuals. The two are interwoven, and
dialectically related.
> 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.
The amoeba does not "feel heat". That is how we may symbolically represent the
situation, perhaps. But the amoeba responds to only to an intensely low quality
experience. "Heat" is a concept that requires an understanding of "fire",
"burn", etc. If that amoeba were to respond moments latter to a drop of liquid
nitrogen nearby, it would again respond immediately to the low quality
environment, but it would have no concept of "cold", nor any conception of how
the two experiences related or contrasted.
Semiotically Yours,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 01 2004 - 05:49:19 BST