From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 13:39:33 BST
Mornin' Ham,
[Ham relied to Arlo's "reality check"]
> So your perspective of reality could be defined as a kind of "process",
> then -- the sorting and arranging of sand into piles. And because the
> reality is not the sand itself or the figure sorting it, it is neither
> subjective nor objective. Interesting, but not altogether surprising,
> considering Pirsig's anthropological background and evolutionary viewpoint.
(Is that analogy in LILA or ZMM?)
Several stands within sociocultural theory (SCT) adhere to a "process ontology".
Anthony Giddens comes to mind with his "structuration theory". I'm not sure if
I put myself in that camp at this point, preferring a more "evolutionary" or
"emergentist" ontology.
The "figure sorting sand" analogy is from ZMM (ch 7). But I do want to thank you
for asking for the reference. When I flipped through ZMM I stumbled on a
statement that I had missed before, which also supports the idea of cultural
semiosis.
In Ch 3 Pirsig states: My own opinion is that the intellect of modern man isn't
that superior. IQs aren't that much different. Those Indians and medieval men
were just as intelligent as we are, but the context in which they thought was
completely different. Within that *context* of thought, ghosts and spirits are
QUITE AS REAL AS atoms, particles, photons and quants are to modern man."
(emphasis added)
This is right before Pirsig talks about the absurdity of thinking the "law of
gravity" existed before people, before space. He says: If that law of gravity
existed, I honestly don't know what a thing has to do to be *nonexistent*. It
seems to me that law of gravity has passed every single test of nonexistence
there is.
Thus, to Pirsig, the "one possible, rational, intelligent conclusion" is that
the "law of gravity itself DID NOT EXIST before Isaac Newton" (emphasis added).
Finally, Pirsig gets back to social semiotics saying: It's all a ghost, and in
antiquity was so recognized as a ghost, the whole blessed world we live in.
It's run by ghosts. (Here's the key part) We see what we see because the ghosts
*show* it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and
Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac
Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. YOUR COMMON SENSE IS NOTHING MORE
THAN THE VOICES OF THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF THESE GHOSTS FROM THE PAST.
(emphasis added, sorry for all the capitals, I thought it important to
highlight this)
The "Green Flash of the Sun" analogy is from Lila (ch 26). Pirsig states: When
Phaedrus started to read yacht literature he ran across a description of the
'green flash' of the sun. What was that all about, he wondered. Why hadn't *he*
seen it? He was sure he had never seen the green flash of the sun. Yet he
*must* have seen it. But if he saw it, why didn't he *see* it? This static
filter (social semiotic values) was the explanation. He didn't see the green
flash of the sun because he'd never been *told* to see it. ... The culture
hadn't told him to so he hadn't seen it."
Anyways, this is what makes the most sense to me, in terms of a "primary
reality".
[Ham says]
> The animated tableaux you've described has a certain Eastern flavor to it.
Like a passing cloud, it's an impressionistic analogy with no substance.
Maybe this is because of your personal need for some "essence"?
[Ham says]
> I see it as having three components -- the sand, the sorter, and continuous
motion -- the existence of none of them being accounted for. I find the
reality missing.
And again, I think, this is because of your personal need to have some
underlying "essence". I don't have this need, and so I don't find the "reality"
missing at all.
[Ham asks]
> Also missing is the sorter's proprietary awareness. Does he (she) not have
thoughts, feelings, purpose? Don't these human values count in your reality
system, or are the sorted sandpiles more important?
The "proprietary awareness" of which you speak is dependant on culturally
salient symbols and values. Certainly the individual "adds" to this, or in a
sense the process of appropriating a semiotic system (which is a larger
collective system) is "tweaked" by the individual's unique micro-cultural
experiences (which is individuality). Semoisis does not makes us automatons of
collective patterns, but it (as Giddens would say) structurates the trajectory
our thoughts, feelings, and sense of purpose wille evolve. The best I can sum
it is, "I become unique THROUGH a social symbol system."
To also quote ol' Witt: Language is the house of Being.
Values, of course, do count. They are just not "external" aspects of reality,
nor some individual "internal" subjective preference. They are the "contextual"
(to use Pirsig's above thinking), culturally-located responses to Quality.
Individuals act on them, but they are made salient by social symbolic
appropriation.
[Ham asked]
> I looked up semiotics sometime back, and know it has something to do with
symbols; but your phrase "based on culturally-learned (semiotic) attention"
totally eludes me. (No wonder I had problems understanding Pirsig!)
Basically, "culturally-learned attention" means that what we select from the
endless landscape as "value" is done through appropriating a social symbolic
system that makes that value salient. The Eskimos have "culturally-learned
attention" to many types of snow, while our "culturally-learned attention" is
not attentive to these variations at all.
In terms of the MOQ, "culturally-learned attention" is akin to a static social
pattern. And it is out of this that our intellect (individual sense) emerges.
[Ham states]
> I don't see how anyone can believe in a reality this fuzzy -- especially when
there is no ultimate reality to back it up. But then, it's not my purpose to
criticize another's belief system.
Sure it is. :-) Anyways, no criticism taken. I don't see this as "fuzzy", I see
you as having some psychological need to believe in an "essence" (just as with
"psychic continuity"). In the end, you believe what you need to believe, and
I'll believe what I need to believe, because both "belief systems" are really
nothing more than useful frameworks. Neither "is" anything beyond that.
[Ham]
> I also recall Pirsig asserting that we only experience what we value.
Exactly. And what we value is "shaped" through the social symbol system that
"represents" this value.
[Arlo talking about Luria, previously]
> > 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!).
[Ham replies]
> The fact that you need an object at all to recognize Quality means that it is
an SOM attribute.
Not at all. The study was about "conceptual categories". We in the West form our
categories "naturally" around materialistic similarities first, while the
villagers in Luria's study formed their categories around activistic
similarities first.
In this case, it is to show that "conceptual categorization" is culturally
formed. Not something "abstract and universal".
Another question Luria asked had to do with reason: In the North, where there is
snow all year, the bears are white. Novaya Zemlya is in the far North. What
color are the bears there?
A recorded response (indicative of most) goes: How should I know what color the
bear was? I haven’t been in the North. You should ask the people who have been
there and seen them. We always speak only of what we see; we don’t talk about
what we haven’t seen.
You see that the problem is that our cultural-value of "abstracted logic" meant
nothing (held no value) to these people. Their value, in this case, was based
on immediate experience. As Pirsig would say (I think), "it's not that these
people are not as intelligent, its just that the context in which they think is
different".
[Ham concludes]
> Thanks, Arlo. If you can locate the sandpile analogy or another passage
> from Pirsig that states the MoQ perspective as you see it, I'd like to read
it.
As I did above.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 15:05:35 BST