From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 18:47:47 BST
Ham Priday to Arlo Bensinger
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004, 1:47 PM
Subject: RE: MD the individual in the MOQ
Thanks for the clarification, Arlo.
You said:
> the amoeba experiences, but that is all.
How do you know that the amoeba "experiences", or is that only a euphemism
for what is observed as a reaction?
> The importance of this
> train of thought, and I mentioned how Pirsig supports this notion, is
that: any
> representation of reality is less than reality, and our representations
are
> structured by the socio-cultural values (made salient through language).
To me, the individual's very concept of physical reality is a
"representation", in that what we experience is not reality "as it really
is". I think what you're calling "semiotic understanding" may be what I
refer to as "intellection" --i.e., breaking down pure Essence into the
discrete "particulars" we recognize intellectually as objects and events.
> For example, to restate, the categorizations of "individual" and
"collective"
> are not real. The are categories that our particular culture deemed
salient,
> and so by virtue of our language, we "see" them and are fooled into
thinking
> they are "real".
This is where I see semiotic logic interfering with metaphysical clarity.
If the semiotic world-view prevents us from understanding the individual as
an independent entity in relation to "otherness", it is contradictory to my
philosophy, as well as to the concpt of Individual Freedom. Individuality
may not be "real" in the absolute sense; but it is critical if one is to
regard man as a "free agent".
> > How important is an understanding
> > of semiotics to comprehending MOQ?
>
> Everything from the direct experience of Quality, the pre-verbal,
pre-thought,
> pre-language expereince, etc,... everything from this moment on down to
these
> words in this email are semiotically mediated.
> So, you can discuss "experiencing" as separate from semiotics, but when
you
> attempt to put this "experience" into a philosophy (or any symbolic
system), we
> have to realize that it is altered and selected by our semiotic systems.
We
> "see" individuals and collectives because our language values that
abstract
> categorization.
Is it then your opinion that there is no "self" in the MOQ? If so, does
MOQ posit any reason (or meaning) for its existence, aside from advancing
the "betterness" of a collective society?
> >A plain English definition for "mediate" would be a good start.
>
> "To stand between". How is that?
Again, I see "self-awareness" as the mediator standing between "experience
of otherness" and "nothingness". The objective world is, as Sartre put it,
"shot through with nothingness". In terms of objective reality, the "self"
is a nothing. (Eckhart also said "creatures are pure nothings".) But the
intellectual creature has the capacity to realize the Value of Essence,
thereby affirming its ultimate reality.
Do you see this philosophy in opposition to MOQ? A possible enhancement of
it? Or totally irreconcilable with it?
Obviously, your answer is of particular interest to me.
--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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 02 2004 - 18:52:53 BST