From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Apr 30 2005 - 14:35:42 BST
Arlo:
> [Arlo says]
> You're right to point this out. There is a "pre-semiotic" time in which an
> infant "experiences". However, I'd argue that semiotic influences begin to
> shape the developing infant before the child has the agency to directly
> manipulate those symbols her/himself. For example, infants are exposed to
> cultural patterns (beddings, colors, sounds, parental "cooing", etc.) very
> shortly after their birth. Simply, we surround our infants with sensory
> experience deemed culturally valuable. So although it is pre-semiotic
> experience on the infants part, it is still experience to culturally valued
> sensations.
Yes, to some extent, no doubt. The point I would make is that the capacity
to express preferences is an intrinsic property of static patterns, from
inorganic on up, and this capacity is characteristic of consciousness.
> More on semiosis from Pirsig (Lila, 24): Our scientific description of
> nature is always culturally derived. Nature tells us only what our culture
> predisposes us to hear. The *selection* of which inorganic patterns to
> observe and which to ignore is made on the basis of social patterns of
> value, or when it is not, on the basis of biological patterns of value.
>
> I'd extend Pirsig's insight to say that not only does cultural-derivation
> influence perception of biological and inorganic patterns, but of social
> and intellectual as well. That is, we "see" social and intellectual
> patterns as we do because we are culturally-semiotically "told to".
>
> (Of course this makes it sound like we're autamatons, which is absolutley
> not what semiotics is about. Only that there is a "filter" at work, as
> Pirsig calls it, or "structuration" as Giddens would say, to how we
> represent experience- which influnces "how" we experience it.)
Agree to all the above. Doubters can also reference Pirsig's metaphor
about our wearing "intellectual glasses to interpret experience with" that
our culture hands to us. (Lila, 8).
Platt (previously)
> > My last sentence read:
> > "This force exhibits design because the initial state and the laws of the
> > universe actualize the states of value of our experience."
> >
> > If you believe patterns are designs, and if you believe that the initial
> > Big Bang was followed by the creation of inorganic patterns according to
> > the DQ force and physical laws, then the resultant patterns (states of
> > value of our experience) suggest are larger design at work.
> > Make any sense to you?
> [Arlo]
> Maybe a little. You are saying that patterns (inorganic) emerged following
> the Big Bang are a result of the DQ force? I would agree with this
Yes. And also that the DQ force created the Big Bang..
> (although I'd say that "physical laws" had nothing to do with it, those are
> conceptualizations to describe inorganic quality, no?).
Correct. Good point. Thanks.
> Then you say that the value experiences we have suggest a larger design? I
> think this is where I am getting confused, maybe because I'm not sure what
> you mean by "if you believe patterns are designs"?
To me a pattern is synonymous with a design, like the Merriam-Webster
dictionary says in defining "pattern:" "4) an artistic, musical, literary
or mechanical design or form." (Note the aesthetic connotation that fits
nicely with Pirsig's attraction to high quality harmony.)
But, referring to your point about "conceptualizations" above, I guess we
should bear in mind that patterns and designs are conceptualizations, too.
Platt
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 Apr 30 2005 - 14:41:40 BST