From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 04 2004 - 10:20:11 BST
Hi Chaps
Take an unsocialised child and give them a
piece of paper. They are free to tear it, eat it, screw it up,
give it to a socialised child and they have lots of extra
freedoms they can undertake: draw on it, read it, write
on it, fold it into a duck, etc. We need to understand both
sorts of freedom, 'freedom from' and 'freedom to'.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:32 PM
Subject: MD Semiotics, the MOQ and the "individual"
> Greetings Ham,
>
>
> >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?
>
> Good question. I'd say it is more a euphorism. In the MOQ, from my limited
> understanding, biological entities are (I think, by definition) able to
> "experience" or "resond to" biological (and the lower level, inorganic)
> Quality. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the MOQ can chime in
> here.
>
>
>
>
> >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.
>
> This sounds right, admitting that I don't know all the particulars of
> Essentialism, I find nothing I disagree with in this.
>
>
>
> >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",
>
> I don't think it "prevents" us from seeing anything, what it does (in this
> case) is make use see that the individual is not an independent entity.
Or,
> at the least, it makes us see the two (individual and "collective") are
> dialectically related, and inseparable.
>
>
> > 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".
>
> It seems to be contradictory to what you are proposing, as our agency is
> structured by the socio-cultural symbolic systems through which we think.
> More radical semioticians, such as Jacques Lacan, proposes that the
> illusory "individual/collective" categorization is not even useful, but
> harmful in that it presents a powerful illusion that structures
"everything
> else". I don't go so far as Lacan, in that I find the categorization
useful
> (in our culture), and I see it better as a mutual, dialectic relationship.
>
>
>
> >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?
>
>
> Again, I don't separate "individual" and "collective", so I do not advance
> one over the other. I think they are both parts of the same. Biological
> individuals become "intellectual" **through** the social semiotic.
>
> I am not, as I've said, an expert on the MOQ. My understanding of it is
> that there is no purpose it terms of a divine mandate for our existence.
> But I don't know if that makes it meaningless. Again, someone else will
> need to chime in on that.
>
>
> > > >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".
>
> I'd propose that "self-awareness" is made possible through a symbolic
> system (again, primarily language). Thus, an infant is made "self-aware"
by
> interactions with others and given a symbolic system to represent "self"
> and "other". A "feral child" (or wolfman, as you called it) would not be
> "self-aware" because said child would lack a way to represent the "self"
> and the "other", and would not see these categories because he/she is not
> part of a cultural "collective" that values these categories.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> The biological creature has the ability to experience Essence. The
> intellectual creature has the capacity to realize the Value of Essence
> through a social semiotic that structures and orders categorization and
> symbolic representation.
>
>
> >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.
>
> Do you mean semiotics or Essentialism? Obviously I feel semiotics is
> complimentary to the MOQ. From what I've been able to gather from your
> posts and others, is Essentialism shares similarity with the MOQ. Whether
> it is "totally irreconcilable" I couldn't say.
>
> 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 : Sat Sep 04 2004 - 10:21:51 BST