From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Jul 22 2005 - 08:49:23 BST
Hi Arlo --
> First, who coined "socio-cultural sophistication" "philosophology"?
I coined "socio-cultural sophistication". As far as I know, Pirsig coined
"philosophology". So what does that prove?
> Next, higher order functions develop out of social interaction. Within a
> socio-cultural theory, development cannot be understood by a study of the
> individual. We must also examine the external social world in which that
> individual life has developed, the artifacts (both material and symbolic)
> that are part of this social world and the governing "ideologies" and
> supportive mythos.
You may feel that studying the external social world is a must. That's OK
by me. But it doesn't address human consciousness -- the key role player
and user of disseminated knowledge. It doesn't answer the question: What am
I? It ignores the remarkable fact that all experience (on which MoQ bases
its Quality theory) is proprietary, and that everything experienced is
"other" to the self. I submit that conscious awareness is more than an
"also ran" with socio-cultural interaction; it's the central core of
existence. Doesn't this warrant some discussion here?
> Individuals, of course, contribute back to the social
> system, and evolutionary change (Dynamic change, if you will) is made
> possible via this dialectical relation.
I don't know what you mean by "dialectical relation" in a social system, but
it doesn't describe the thought process nor the contributions made to
society by thinking individuals. In fact, everything you say appears to be
an attempt to avoid the concept of individualism and the unique potential of
the human intellect.
> To be as terse as possible: "Conscious thought" is a completely semiotic
> process (words, symbols, categorizations, valuations, etc).
That is a reduction to absurdity! When I say consciousness, I'm not talking
about words and symbols. You can analogize the thought process as a
mechanistic juggling of data, but it doesn't account for the Thinker. One
could also describe thought in terms of electro-neural pulses traversing the
synapses; but that's not the essence of thought, any more than phone lines
carrying electrical signals are the essence of a telephone conversation.
Doesn't it concern you that such collectivist definitions totally evade the
conscious entity itself -- the Possessor of awareness? You have constructed
your world-view as if the individual didn't exist.
> An individual, whose "conscious
> thought" has emerged through a particularlly situated socio-cultural
> environment contributes back to that environment, and may in fact produce
> evolutionary change within the system ...
"MAY in fact produce"? Indeed, tell me how society can evolve without it?
Is there some mysterious force I'm yet unaware of that causes socio-cultural
change in the absence of the individual? From my anthropocentric
perspective, all this talk about artifacts, semiosis, mythos, and analogues
is utterly meaningless.
You systems theorists miss the whole point of philosophical discourse -- the
autonomy of man, the proprietary nature of consciousness, and the meaning of
human existence. According to you, the system with its myriad patterns,
levels, latches, and interrelations is a self-evolving process that works
just fine. So who needs man anyway?
I don't dare ask what value, if any, you place on the life of an individual
or his freedom.
Good night,
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 : Fri Jul 22 2005 - 09:12:23 BST