From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 20:02:52 BST
Eco refer to as the "pre-semiotic"
DM: can you expand on this, as according to Pirsig we
have to chop up experience before we can experience
anything, so I assume this is as true of all sense data
even prior to language use, which agrees to how brain
and body has to interpret all exchanges of energy
as information, hence, I assume pre-semiotic,
or just a priori knowledge as per Kant
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: RE; MD the individual in the MOQ
> Greetings Ham, Mel, All,
>
> > I haven't researched single-celled organisms, but would assume that the
> > amoeba's response to injurious temperatures and chemicals is due to a
> > similar mechanism. Nature has equipped all living organisms with
"survival
> > instincts", whether they operate on a bio-mechanical or sensient level.
> >
>
> This would be correct, it would be akin to saying (in my view) that the
amoeba
> responded to a Quality experience.
>
> > As for the semiotics of this response-mechanism, I plead ignorance. I'm
at
> > a loss to understand Arlo's question: "can that amoeba ever know the
concept
> > of heat?" Can either of you explain how a blob of protoplasm with no
neural
> > components can be said to possess awareness, let alone "knowledge", of
> > anything?
>
> No, in fact this was my point. The amoeba can possess no "knowlege" of
anything
> because this requires a symbolic system to represent the "knowledge".
>
>
> And, what leads you both to conclude that it should have to?
> >
>
> I think you have it backwards, we were both (I believe) argueing that the
amoebe
> "experiences", but that is all.
>
> > Semiotics was not taught in my college Philosophy or Logic classes.
I've
> > been researching some articles based on Charles Pierce's work on the
> > Internet and, frankly, except for the fact that most conceptual thinking
> > involves word symbols, I fail to see how these "'representations" of
> > experience affect "primary" experience.
>
> 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".
>
> In turn, we shape our thinking with these terms, it structures how we view
the
> world and create our philosophies.
>
> Thus, what Peirce and Umberto Eco refer to as the "pre-semiotic" or
> "proto-semiotic", Pirsig talks about as the "cutting edge of awareness",
before
> it is diced up and altered to fit the structures of our semiotic system.
>
> 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 - 22:59:43 BST