From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 22 2005 - 16:18:39 BST
Hi Ham
[Ham]
> I coined "socio-cultural sophistication". As far as I know, Pirsig coined
"philosophology". So what does that prove?
[Arlo]
No, Ham, your post stated "I suggest that we drop the socio-cultural
sophistication (otherwise coined "philosophology"). I'm asking who coined the
world "philosophology" FOR "socio-cultural sophistication".
[Ham]
> 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?
[Arlo]
I think it certainly DOES answer it, Ham. The great and wonderous "I" is an
emergent analogue used to describe experience. Albert Einstein, for example,
said: "A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part
limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as
something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his
consciousness."
(http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Einstein.html)
Notice how that last part chimes directly with Pirsig's statement that "Men
invent responses to Quality, and among these responses is an understanding of
what they themselves are." The "I" is an analogue use to organize experience
into social-semiotically mediated system. In fact, the weight of the "I" as a
solidified non-analogue is part of the SOM problem in the West. According to
Pirsig: "Thus, in cultures whose ancestry includes ancient Greece, one
invariably finds a strong subject-object differentiation because the grammar of
the old Greek mythos presumed a sharp natural division of subjects and
predicates. In cultures such as the Chinese, where subject-predicate
relationships are not rigidly defined by grammar, one finds a corresponding
absence of rigid subject-object philosophy." (ZMM, I don't know the page, using
a web version).
[Ham]
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.
[Arlo]
I agree with Einstein that this is a "delusion of consciousness", nothing more.
[Arlo previously]
> > Individuals, of course, contribute back to the social
> > system, and evolutionary change (Dynamic change, if you will) is made
> > possible via this dialectical relation.
[Ham]
> 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.
[Arlo]
I don't argue that there is nothing "unique in potential" about human intellect
in the world. I argue that this "uniqueness" rests squarely on the back of
social semiosis.
The "dialectial relation" I spoke of is precisely the evolution-engine that
keeps the social (and intellectual) evolving. Because individuals can
internalize these analogues (such as the "I"), and build social semiotic
understanding, and because they have unique experiences in which the personally
internalize via social semiosis, they are different and this drives evolution.
Not just because they are "different" mind you, because they interact back with
the system and those "differences" become part of the Quality environment to
which others respond.
"The mythos-over-logos argument points to the fact that each child is born as
ignorant as any caveman. What keeps the world from reverting to the Neanderthal
with each generation is the continuing, ongoing mythos, transformed into logos
but still mythos, the huge body of common knowledge that unites our minds as
cells are united in the body of man. To feel that one is not so united, that
one can accept or discard this mythos as one pleases, is not to understand what
the mythos is." (Pirsig, ZMM)
[Arlo previously]
> > To be as terse as possible: "Conscious thought" is a completely semiotic
process (words, symbols, categorizations, valuations, etc).
[Ham]
> That is a reduction to absurdity! When I say consciousness, I'm not talking
about words and symbols.
[Arlo]
Have you ever had a "conscious thought" that was not semiotically mediated in
any way? Explain this to me.
[Ham]
> 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.
[Arlo]
No. And I haven't. I just don't need to place the "I" as some great and
wonderful external "thing". "I" am completely comfortable knowing it is simply
an analogue I use to participate in social semiosis.
I don't "possess awareness". I experience. And, if Quality so demands, I
selectively organize that experience into intellectual patterns based on my
social-cultural semiotic. And I say that "I experience" as a useful analogue.
By your strong need to place an "I" so above and external, I am reminded of
another Einstein saying, this one actually quoted in ZMM. "He makes this cosmos
and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this
way the peace and serenity which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of
personal experience."
[Arlo previously]
> > 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 ...
[Ham]
> "MAY in fact produce"? Indeed, tell me how society can evolve without it?
[Arlo]
Of course by "may" I meant any given individual. Not all of us are so lucky as
to be a catalyst for cultural evolution. Pirsig was. Einstein was. I doubt I
will be. Although in numbers, we are involved in perpetuating and (hopefully)
static latching some of Pirsig's ideas. In that way (as one example) we all
contribute to evolution too.
[Ham]
> 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.
[Arlo]
I'm sorry to hear that, Ham. If arguing and expositing on a grand and glorius
"I", possessor of awareness, locus of conscious thought independant of social
semiosis, is "meaningful" for you, then by all means, continue. Just know that
not everyone shares this particular ego-driven need, and some of us find it
foolish. But, you have to follow your own quest for meaning, eh?
And, no, there is no "force" that causes socio-cultural change in the absense of
the individual. Just like there is no "individual" (apart from the biological
pattterns) in the absense of socio-cultural mediation. This is the dialectic
relation you continue to miss.
[Ham]
> 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.
[Arlo]
Again, Ham, this is YOUR point of philosophical discourse. YOUR emotional need.
You project this out as if everyone should share this need, and those who don't
are somehow "missing the point". And I think your statement here also reflects
how heavily SOM is in your metaphysical understanding.
But, I'll bite. What is, in your opinion, the "meaning of human existence"?
[Ham]
> I don't dare ask what value, if any, you place on the life of an individual or
his freedom.
[Arlo]
I value individuals greatly. Any given individual may provoke evolutionary
change, although most of us will do little "individually". Because of this,
individual life should be protected at all costs. Pirsig made this argument in
Lila. I shouldn't have to repeat it for you.
As for "freedom", I think that "freedom" maximizes any individual's ability to
be a potential evolutionary catalyst. And so I value it greatly.
All this without the need for an great and glorius "I" that exists independantly
of everything around it.
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 : Fri Jul 22 2005 - 16:24:43 BST