From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 03:41:40 BST
Hi Ham,
Your two choices represent "subjectivism" and "objectivism". I'm surprised you
would even need to ask this in a MOQ forum.
However, since you've asked, I'd (personally) reject both in favor of a
sociocultural or semiotic-driven framework. Moreso, I'd start with Pirsig's
notion of "taking a handful of sand from the endless landscape around us and
calling that sand 'the world'" (not verbatim, I am writing from memory). But,
as Pirsig says, what's vital is that there is process of discrimination going
on, that is there is a figure in the middle of the landscape, sorting the sand
into categorical piles, selecting what is included and what is dismissed.
This figure, as Pirsig eludes, makes these critical divisions not because of
some inhernet feature of the "sand" (objectivism), nor does it create the sand
out of mind (subjectivism), but it sorts the sand based on culturally-learned
(semiotic) attention. That is, "cows" do not exist in the objective world, nor
is a subjective manifestion, but a culturally-attentive category made salient
for participation in our particular, historic, cultural milieu.
This is where I think anti-Pirsig "Quality-relativism" charges can be combatted.
Quality "differs" for people not because Quality is relative (subjective), but
because our cultural-attentive systems (the figure sorting the sand) is
predisposed to select and categorize based on the semiotic system of the
individual. Thus, to an Eskimo, it is Quality that leads them to perceive so
many variations of "snow", while to us, that Quality is not culturally-salient
(likely due to our instantiation in warmer climes).
To extend away, Russian cultural psychologists studied this categorization
process (via "literacy") (the study I'll mention briefy was conducted by A.R.
Luria). Illiterate peasents were shown a series of pictures (a hammer, a log, a
saw, and an axe) and asked to say "which one doesn't belong". Responses were
all similar, here is one: A 25 yr. old peasant: "They're all alike. The saw
will saw the log; the hatchet will chop it. If one of these has to go, I'd
throw out the hatchet. It doesn't do as good a job as a saw."
To this culture, the category of "tools" (as objects) was not Quality. Instead,
a process category of activity (chopping) was Quality (and you need a log in
that category, or you have nothing to chop!).
There is no "ideal tool" of which all tools partake. Nor is "toolness" a feature
of biological, chemical or genetic construction. "Toolness" is created when the
"figure sorts the sand" because it has been culturally made salient to do this
(based on the pragmatic activity of the culture). The same can be said of
"cowness", "freedom" or "umbrellas".
Pirsig's "green flash of the sun" story in Lila gets to the same point.
Non-sailors have no pragmatic need to "see" this, and so they don't. It simple
does not exist for them; i.e., the figure simply doesn't sort the sand into
that category.
This may not be precisely what you were looking for, but its the best I can
offer, as both your options fall short for me.
Anyone else?
Arlo
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:40:51 +0000, wrote:
> Arlo, Platt, Ian, Sam, MSH, and all --
>
> Having offered a theory on the reason for the fundamental discord in our MoQ
> discussions (as I see it) under the 'Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design'
> heading, I'd like to open it for discussion by the entire MD list. Hence,
> the new subject line.
>
> Since an explanation can never be as clear as an actual example, I've copied
> conceptual definitions quoted from two (non-MoQ) sources, each of which
> represents a distinct reality perspective. You will recognize the first as
> 'Scientific Materialism' and may consider the second either a form of
> 'Platonic Idealism' or 'Anthropocentrism'. How would you classify it?
>
> My main question is: Which reality perspective are you more likely to
> identify with? That is, which statement best expresses your personal belief
> system? I hope you will find this exercise self-revealing as well as
> interesting; for me, your answer will indicate whether my theory has any
> bearing on the way metaphysically-related topics are typically dealt with by
> the various MD participants. In other words, it should answer the question:
> "Where is he (she) coming from?" -- often an important factor to consider
> when directing thoughts and ideas to specific individuals.
>
> Again, this is not a trick question, and I'm not trying to "challenge"
> anyone. I'd really like to know on which side you would position yourself.
> Also, I'd be interested in whether you consider this a useful 'qualifier'
> for reviewing and posting messages in this forum.
>
> Statement A.
>
> "Ontologically, [its] materialism means that matter, nature, the observable
> world is taken 'without reservations' as real in its own right, neither
> deriving its reality from any supernatural or transcendental source, nor
> dependent for its existence on the mind of man. It is considered
> scientifically evident that matter is prior to mind both temporally and
> logically in the sense that mind never appears except as an outgrowth of
> matter, and must be explained accordingly. Space and time are viewed as
> forms of the existence of matter." [Dagobert Runes, philosopologist]
>
> Statement B.
>
> "I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. ...The
> world of our daily experience-the world of tables, chairs, stars and people,
> with their attendant shapes, smells, feels and sounds-is a species-specific
> user interface to a realm far more complex, a realm whose essential
> character is conscious. ... If this be right, if consciousness is
> fundamental, then we should not be surprised that, despite centuries of
> effort by the most brilliant minds, there is as yet no physical theory of
> consciousness, no theory that explains how mindless matter and energy or
> fields could be, or cause, conscious experience." [Donald Hoffman,
> cognitive scientist]
>
> Oh, one additional question. Do you feel that a third statement would be
> required to adequately represent the major reality perspectives of the MD
> group?
>
> Thanks for participating,
> 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 Apr 28 2005 - 03:45:09 BST