From: mark maxwell (laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 14 2005 - 01:33:06 BST
Hi Mark, and Scott,
Great thread - I'm understanding Scott's
"contradictory identity"
stuff better too (I think).
Inserted response to Marks mail (with some of Scotts
drawn in)...
> Mark:
> This is coming close to, 'There is nothing but
> language' stuff Ian?
[IG] Close, but not quite; Just a caveat that in our
debates (and
Pisrig's or anyone else's writings) there is nothing
but language,
Mark:
This is a bold statement Ian.
Language can be regarded as patterns of values; some
intellectual and some social. And language is not all
we experience.
My point was to highlight your implicit supposition
that ideas (language) have ontological primacy over
values.
When you say, "in our debates (and Pisrig's or anyone
else's writings) there is nothing but language" you
are being sloppy in my view. I would suggest that in
our debates there are nothing but values... etc.
Ian:
and
another warning to remember this distinction between
expression
(public or private, intellectualised) and the
pre-intellectual
concepts.
Mark:
By pre-intellectual concepts do you mean,
'Postulations by intuition'?
A ‘concept by intuition’ is one, which denotes, and
whose complete meaning is
given in immediately apprehended experience.
‘Intuition’ in this context means
‘immediately perceived’ not instinctively known or
felt. A headache or ‘blue’ (in the
context of the sensed colour) are concepts by
intuition.136
On the other hand, ‘a “concept by postulation” is one
the meaning of which (in
whole or part) is designated by the postulates of the
deductive theory in which it
occurs.’ (Northrop, 1947, p.83) It is a concept not
given by immediate experience
but through deduction. Sub-atomic particles or ‘blue’
(in the context of a particular
wavelength in electromagnetic radiation) are concepts
by postulation. (McWatt 2004 p. 151-2)
Ian:
Notwithstanding the "caveat" let's not forget the main
point
here is that we seem to be agreeing on needing some
clarification of
the dynamic / static nature of any given level /
pattern ?
Mark:
This is very much a problem for me because i regard DQ
as concept free. It cannot be contained in any
patterned way.
The only pointer i can offer at this time is to
suggest every level has a 'Dynamic code' which
organises the sq patterns. That Dynamic code is really
DQ itself.
>
> I'll repeat one thing (I'm still happy with your
terse
> DESRIP summary
> Mark) - but we have a meta-problem - which levels we
> are talking IN
> and ABOUT at any given time.
>
> Mark:
> Evolution sorts that out: All levels are
> intellectually described but experienced differently
> due to the intellectually valuable notion of
> evolution.
[IG] - One of us is missing the other here. I was
really raising the
distinction between the expression of one level in
another level - the
level and it's expression being distinct. (I'm all for
evolution as
you know, but I don't see what you're applying it to
here - was it
because I said "at any given time" ? - which was
redundant I guess.)
Mark:
I see. I think I've indeed missed what you are after.
We hit the 'discrete levels' issue: any given level is
not an extension of preceding levels. That's the key
to your answer i think; social language expresses
social patterns, intellectual language expresses
intellectual patterns. Social patterns, such as
doffing your hat, can be expressed as a narrative or
within a logical argument.
[IG] Stable rather than "static" - mentally that's
what I do too. I
approve - allows me to think in terms of
meta-stability / chaotic
stuff too.
Mark:
Blimey! What a busy brain you have! ;)
[IG] - Notwithstanding the "undivided aesthetic"
(Northrop) language -
the stable patterns that arise are undoubtedly
"valued" - without some
conservatism (of things that have served society well)
we would have
simple anarchy and chaos - fun for a while only :-)
Society makes
(imperfect) choices based on the "quality" of the
choices /
opportunities arising.
(BTW The Poll Tax is not yet a stable pattern,
it's too young, the jury is still out, and clearly
there are mixed
views as to its value. Your view of its divisiveness,
is probably more
related to its "introduction" than its stability ?
Mark:
The poll tax is not a young pattern. It had been
introduced many time at various stages of English
political history, and each time it was a failure and
for the same reasons. In fact, Issac Asimov used this
fact in his "Forward the Foundation" novel as part of
his psychohistory thingy; psychohistory tells us it
ain't ever going to stick.
Ian:
Contradictory
Identity - DQ and sq are indeed the same thing - just
opposite
extremes of an axis in terms of timescale of change
within the
evolutionary whole?
Mark:
I don't hold much with this LoCI stuff myself.
Maybe a helpful approach is to view all sq as
attributes of DQ. I'm not suggesting if you could
experience all sq across space and across time you
would experience DQ though.
Mark
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
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 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 01:47:04 BST