From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Jul 23 2005 - 02:01:15 BST
Paul, Platt, and all --
Thank you, Paul, for taking the time to respond in a meaningful way to my
queries.
[Ham, previously]
> Apart from particular notions of what the objects of perception are
> and what language a person speaks, do you really believe that
> the thought processes of a native Ugandan are significantly
> different than the thought processes of a North American?
[Paul]
> It depends on what you mean by thought processes. Do you mean to
> distinguish between the process of thinking and the thoughts? If so, what
> is there of philosophical interest to "thought processes" minus the
> thoughts? ...
>
> My basic question to you is - did Neanderthals reason?
I think the Neanderthals had the capacity to reason, as demonstrated by the
development of their frontal lobes, and by evidence found of hunting
implements fashioned from stones, cave paintings, and garments made from
animal skins. They weren't about to discover the principles of astronomy or
energy conversion because their lives didn't depend on it. But their
migration habits have been shown to follow the routes most favorable for
food supply and they established a tribal culture which was most likely
enhanced by primitive vocal communication. All of these activities required
a level of reasoning beyond that of the primates. The fact that
anthropologists have noted cultural progress over successive generations
establishes further proof of the Neanderthals' reasoning capacity.
[Ham]
> You offer the example of "a human born into isolation".
> Do you believe that thought (e.g., cognition and reasoning)
> cannot occur without language or a cultural heritage?
[Paul]
> I don't equate thought with cognition, it's too broad a word, it
> includes too many other things, some of which I would think are primary
some
> of which aren't. Yes, I think reasoning cannot occur without language.
You
> see, I don't think, like some people do (not saying you), that a dog that
> lifts its paw because it gets food or a dolphin that jumps through hoops
for
> fish is demonstrating something like reason. Nor do I think that when man
> learned how to start fires he had reasoned it out. I think reasoning is a
> culturally learned skill.
Let's start with what kind of thought you consider to be "primary". Is
self-consciousness primary enough? A cognizant animal that decorates itself
or its habitat in a creative way is displaying something of itself that
can't be explained by simple animal instinct. To me such creativity reveals
a sense of selfness that I would consider self-consciousness.
[Ham]
> Is it your position that the consciousness or mind of a
> human being is no more than a reflection of his
> or her acculturation?
[Paul]
> I think *intellectual consciousness* is cultural i.e. I think
> abstract symbol manipulation is a learned skill.
> This is what I refer to as mind. I think consciousness
> as a synonym for experience is primary but I
> wouldn't say "consciousness or mind" as if they are necessarily
> the same thing like you do. Mind can mean almost anything,
> particularly in philosophy, so it isn't a good word unless you
> define it clearly and not just assume that everyone uses it in
> the same way. I also struggle with what is consistently meant
> by consciousness.
Fair enough. These are difficult terms to define because they do tend to
overlap.
It's my position that consciousness can be reduced to "sensible awareness",
whether human or animal, and that this capacity implies "consciousness"
because the organism that is aware of its sensibilities must also integrate
them within its own experience. I also don't think self-consciousness and
the ability to conceptualize from experience are found in species other than
Homo-sapiens, which is why I regard man as a "special" creature.
[Ham]
> If it is your belief that the individual contributes nothing of his own to
> society, how do you explain the intellectual advance of a culture?
[Paul]
> New intellectual patterns are created by the response of the existing
> static patterns of an individual human being to DQ. That is how cultures
> advance intellectually. Or as Pirsig puts it in SODV ("Conceptually
> Unknown" is a word he suggests as another term for DQ)
Here you begin to lose me. What is the difference between forming original
concepts based on personal experience and responding to existing patterns in
a new way? And what does the "Conceptually Unknown" have to do with such
concepts? Is Pirsig saying that the observer's ability to form subjective
impressions (proprietary cognizance) in his investigations of the physical
world an "unknown quantity"? Or is he simply adopting the "positivists"
position that scientific data must not be tainted by the bias of
subjectivity?
[Paul]
> "I think science generally agrees that there is something that has to
enter
> into experiments other than the measuring instruments, and I think science
> would agree that "Conceptually Unknown" is an acceptable name for it.
That is indeed a beautifully stated synthesis. But I see Scientism and Art
as two very different disciplines, each with its own unique agenda.
The scientist seeks to expand man's knowledge of the universe by
establishing facts of a quantitative or model-conforming nature. Facts are
verifiable by virtue of their repeatability and predictive results. So the
function of Science is to build on an existing database for practical
purposes.
The artist seeks to satisfy the poetic or "Epicurean" soul by applying his
inspiration and talents to the production of esthetic works. The measure of
the artist's success is the "quality" or perceived value of these works to
his audience. I think any attempt to relate the two disciplines amounts to
an 'apples and oranges' comparison.
You may be correct that I haven't assimilated all of Pirsig's ideas as well
as I might have, had I studied them methodically. While I gave a good deal
of attention to the SODV, which I believe was masterful, I read ZMM and Lila
as novels, making mental notes of those passages which related most closely
to my own philosophy, but without attempting to put it all together as a
unified theory. So, I'll admit that I came to Pirsig with a bias in the
direction of Essence. Possibly you see that as unfair; however, given this
bias, I have seen nothing in the Pirsig quotations posted in the MD that
would change my current view.
Still essentially yours,
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 : Sat Jul 23 2005 - 03:16:22 BST