From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2005 - 18:57:37 GMT
Arlo,
This seems to me to be an excellent summary of the MOQ's view on language,
and I disagree with all of it :-) For an alternative view, see my latest
post to Paul.
What I want to say here is why I think the MOQ's view on language (and
intellect) has its roots in SOM, and has not escaped it. SOM splits reality
into mind and nature. Language belongs to mind. The MOQ preserves this split
when it sees the mental (the social and intellectual levels) as having
developed out of nature (the inorganic and biological levels). The only
difference that I can see between a SOM materialist view and the MOQ is that
the MOQ has added DQ to account for value and as a means for development up
the levels (in which role it seems to me to be theistic). And to bring in
mysticism. But the way it brings in mysticism is also SOM-based. (I won't go
into this, but it is the original impetus of this thread: "Pure experience
and the Kantian problematic" -- arising from Sam's essay on moq.org).
With respect to what you say here, I will point out that you emphasize
language's role in discriminating, and hence limiting the full panoply of
that of which it is possible to be aware. This can be turned around, by
saying that language (or better, intellect) creates *by* discriminating.
Without it there is only chaos. By making distinctions, reality comes into
being.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: ID/Ling, again (was Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian
problematic)
Scott/Paul,
Just to chime in quick...
I am currently working on a paper that links pre-semiosis with Dynamic
Quality. Pirsig began in ZMM:
The application of this knife, the division of the world into parts and the
building of this structure [semiosis], is something everybody does. All the
time we are aware of millions of things around us- these changing shapes,
these burning hills, the sound of the engine [clip]- aware of these things
but not really conscious of them [presemiosis] unless there is something
unusual or unless the reflect something we are predisposed to see [based on
our cultural-historical semiotic mediation]. [clip] From all this awareness
we must select, and what we select and call consciousness is never the same
as the awareness because the process of selection mutates it [Quality can
never be captured in a semiotic system of this distortive process]. [big
clip]. To understand what he was trying to do it's necessary to see that
part of the landscape, inseparable from it, which must be understood, is a
figure in the middle of it, sorting sand into piles.
Pirsig uses the amoeba and heat example, in that the response to heat is
presemiotic (Dynamic) first, as in "this is poor Quality", and
semiotically-mediated (in humans) later with the conscious understanding of
"heat". An infant would respond like the amoeba by having only the
awareness of low Quality. Eventually, as the infant ages, he/she will be
able to formulate this experience into a semiotic system to symbollically
re-experience the experience culturally, but always after the primary DQ
experience.
Umberto Eco calls the presemiotic experience that prompts semiotic response
the "Dynamical Object" (the use of Dynamic is coincidental). In Kant and
the Platypus, Eco says, mirroring Pirsig:
But there is a phenomenon we must understand as presemiotic, or
protosemiotic (in the sense that it constitutes the signal that gets the
semiosic process underway), which we will call primary indexicality [clip].
Primary indexicality occurs when, amid the thick stuff of sensations that
bombard us, we suddenly select something that we set against the general
background and decide we want to speak about it (when, in other words,
while we live surrounded by luminous, thermile, tactic, and interoceptive
sensations, only one of these attracts our attention, and only afterward we
say that it is cold, or we have a sore foot).
Before language, before semiosis, there is only uncategorized,
unconceptualized, unmediated "experience". Eastern mysticism, in it many
guises, has an ubiquitous element of "escaping words" either through
meditation, live burial, paradoxes, koans, etc. This desire to return to
presemiotic experience, Pirsig links up with "experiencing Dynamic
Quality". Platt refers to it very eloquently in his writings on art.
With infants, I think their prelingual, presemiotic experience is very much
pure Dynamic Quality. With adults, the "key" is to return to a state of
semiosis (language) with some insight or improvement based on your journey
into presemiosis. Infants are, of course, unable to do this as they have
not appropriated any semiotic system.
In this sense, language is a form of symbolic violence (to paraphrase
Bourdieu), in that though it is vital for our survival, and our ability to
construct static, social-cultural-historical edifices, it does, in effect,
rip us out of primary, direct experience of the world, and creates the
false illusion of SOM. A double-edged sword, if you will.
Arlo
At 02:40 PM 2/15/2005, you wrote:
>Scott
>
>Scott said:
>Hence the gist of my metaphysics: to reject the
>language/world-without-language distinction.
>
>Paul:
>What about the pre-lingual experience of infants?
>
>Regards
>
>Paul
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 : Wed Feb 16 2005 - 21:31:34 GMT