From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Jun 17 2005 - 22:05:35 BST
Hi Platt
On 16 June Platt Holden wrote:
> > I don't know if you agree with my "thinking as silent language",
> > nor am I sure what static level you see thoughts belonging to, but I
> > for one see the division "thoughts/what thoughts are about" as
> > intellect, but thinking as (silent) language is a social pattern. I
> > can't but kick Paul and David again. They are latter-day
> > Shakespeareans postulating intellect's subjective half as primary.
> I see thoughts as static values solidified by symbols and grammatical
> construction belonging to both the social and intellectual levels and
> having been derived from pure, pre-thought experience.
No disagreement only that static values must belong somewhere.
That language started as a social pattern we agree on - no? And
if you can stand it I will try to lay out my take of languages role in
the Quality evolution.
How language came to be in the first place I don't know, maybe
neither Paul or yours
> > Paul: Unless you seriously think that one person sat down and worked
> > out an entire language from scratch...
> Unless you seriously think humans suddenly started talking to one another
> while sitting around the cave
... or anything I can come up with may be all correct, but once
present language "invaded" the faculty that all highly brained
creatures have (in computer lingo called RAM) where experience
is be stored and "refined", where dreams reside. It became the
"voices" of gods which is the Myth - the common reality. Aeons
later, what is described by Jaynes "Bicameral" idea, took place,
the voices stopped being "heard" but became thoughts in (what
became to be seen as) the mind. Thus language (as the social
pattern) made it from the deep social reality to the shallow waters
in front of intellect's landmass where Q-evolution rested for new
millenniums until it surfaced as the experience described in ZMM.
> I don't
> distinguish between silent and spoken thoughts except in the sense
> that silent thoughts generally have higher value being more immediate
> to what I value most -- direct experience.
I believe that forays back to our myth reality is made - what
happens in dreams and meditation for example - but if it is "direct
experience" in the DQ sense?
> I don't know about DMB but I think Paul would argue with your
> assessment that he considers subjectivity primary. From what I read,
> he is very dubious of the S/O split, but rather advocates like Pirsig
> the primacy of values, even going so far in his recent post to Scott
> to question the notion of consciousness and whether there's any
> distinction between awareness and value. In fact, I'd be very
> interested in your answers to Paul's questions:
I may do Paul great injustice, but his willingness to support
absolutely anything said by Pirsig - even if it flies in the face of
the MOQ - disappoints me.
> Where do you draw the line between non-consciousness and
> consciousness?
This is for Scott? But I may answer it too. As I see it
consciousness does not appear in the MOQ. It is either
everything (the base for a Metaphysics of Consciousness) or
nothing. When a human being wakes from sleep (or anaesthesia)
it is to the respective value levels, we may be biological if pain or
hunger or positive sensations dominate. Social if - for instance -
bad conscience or other emotions dominate our outlook. But soon
intellect's rational overview will take over.
> Assuming you can draw a line do you mean non-human vs.human, inorganic
> vs. organic, matter vs. mind, awake vs. asleep?
I'm not sure if I understand, but it sounds like Paul asks if Scott
sees consciousness as just waking from sleep or as representing
the awareness that's humans are supposed to possess in contrast
to animals. These are crucial issues and I too would like Scott to
answer, but he will surely disappear behind new and obscure
twists and turns.
> Do you distinguish consciousness from experience?
As said a Metaphysics of Consciousness with
Consciouness=Experience as its first axiom (like MOQ's
Quality=Experience) is feasible, but it would not change anything.
> Are you saying awareness exists first and causes value? Or that they
> arise together? If so, why is the distinction worth making?
An awareness or consciousness metaphysics would say "yes".
> Can you have awareness without value?
...and also turn this around to "can you have value without
awareness" Something I believe is behind Scott's philosophical
antics. But VALUE is best!
> What struck me was I read these question and tried to pose my own
> answers was that we might do well to eliminate the word
> "consciousness" all together because it presumes SOM on its face and
> starts metaphysics down the wrong path before the horse is even out of
> the barn.
Only now I came to your own conclusion Platt and sees that it fits
my own. Great!
Bo
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 : Fri Jun 17 2005 - 22:11:27 BST