From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 19:50:03 BST
Arlo:
> I think the ramifications here (and Peirce is not the only semiotician to
> contribute, in fact Vygotsky (who never used the word 'semiotics') built a
> psychology around the fact that everything subsequent to that first,
> primary experience, is mediated through symbolic artifacts. 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).
>
> 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".
It's nice to learn that "primary experience" is a symbolic artifact, a
representation of reality that is less than reality. In fact "reality"
itself is a symbolic artifact that we are fooled into thinking is real.
Result? We are all fools to talk about the unreality of the MOQ.
Sorry, could not resist. :-)
Platt
>
> To me, the ramifications relevant to this conversation (individual versus
> collective) is to show that these are not separate isolated categories.
> They are dialectically related. Certainly, biological individuals exist,
> but since their "sorting sand into piles" is structured by the social
> semiotic (and there is no escape from that, nor could there be), it is
> better to say, and I repeat again, "man thinks through his culture, not
> separate or parallel to it".
>
> We make artifical distinctions (individual-collective) to advance certain
> social layer patterns, and these artifical distinctions (as can be seen in
> the works of mentioned authors and contributors) shape philosophies to
> severe degrees.
>
>
> 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. My
> "experience" is filtered by cultural and social semiotic systems that I
> have assimilated (and help reconstruct).
>
> 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.
>
>
> Perhaps you can enlighten me. (A plain
> > English definition for "mediate" would be a good start.)
> >
>
> "To stand between". How is that?
>
> To others reading, sorry I've been so repitious in this email. I'm just
> hoping it helps clarify things a bit.
>
> 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 : Thu Sep 02 2004 - 20:33:07 BST