From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Sun Oct 02 2005 - 19:18:32 BST
>> [Case]
>> Are you actaully saying the bilogical complexity "creates" the the
>> inner mental world or do you mean that the complexity of the inner
>> world is a function of biological complexity?
[Bo]
> My "creating an inner mental world" naturally means that the
> outer non-mental world was created simultaneously, they go
> together. But my point is that this wasn't perceived as any S/O by
> animals or the social reality humans.
[Case]
I could go with something like: during the act of perception we create an
inner representation of the outer world. But to suggest that our thought
processes bring the physical world into being... I don't think so.
The only evidence I can think of regarding subject/object distinctions in
animals was done by Gordan Gallup. He places a dot of rouge on a chimps
forehead and showed the ape a mirror. The chimps would look in the mirror
and then touch the dot of rouge. This suggests that the chimps were aware
themselves and that the image in the mirror was them.
I am not altogether sure what you mean by social reality humans but there
have been extensive studies of tribal peoples all over the world and they
have not been found to be fundenmentally different from regular folks.
>> [Bo]
>> >> But note, even if I called it a mental or inner word - indicating
>> >> SOM - the biological level knew/know no such distinction, nor did
>> >> the social level early man. When he heard voices, they were not in
>> >> his head but gods speaking to him. Even present-day social value
>> >> humankind applies (what intellect calls) supernatural explanation
>> >> when confronted with (what intellect calls) natural events.
>
>> [Case]
>> The idea the early man took the voices in his head to be the voices of
>> gods was propounded by Julian Jaynes in "The Origin of Consciousness
>> in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" but I never thought anyone
>> took it seriously.
[Bo]
> You will be surprised what is taken seriously around here ;-).
[Case]
Roger that.
[Bo]
Of course I know it's Jaynes. And what do we know about mankind's
> world of, say, 50 000 years ago? I find it highly probable that their
> "social" reality was totally different from our intellectual - S/O -
> one. At least the said inner/outer capability weren't recognized as
> SOM - dreams weren't perceived as "subjective" - but as
> visitations from forebears, gods, whatever as real as reality
> comes.
[Case]
We have little reason to think that prehistoric man was in any way different
from historic man. As for how they viewed themselves, the world and their
relationship to it, all we have is sketchy forensic evidence. Even there,
the similarities between us and them are more striking than the differences.
See Campbell's discussions of cave bear worship in Transformations of Myth
Through Time.
[Bo]
>> >> Conclusion: I hope you see my point: It is intellect that has
>> >> created and upholds the schism between the inner and outer
>> >> experience. If it is REAL has no meaning outside intellect, it is
>> >> an enormous value that has created modernity (science of all kinds,
>> >> but also the welter of value patterns that Pirsig lists in LILA) It
>> >> is not something we can abandon, but must retain as the the highest
>> >> level in the MOQ hierarchy, only subordinate to the system of which
>> >> it is a part.
>
>> [Case]
>> I think the schism between inner and outer is very real. The inner is
>> composed entirely of experience and the outer is who knows what?
[Bo]
> Yes, yes, it's intellect or SOM that has the inner/outer (S/O)
> schism as "very real". The funny thing is that so few have noticed
> that the MOQ rejects the SOM, which means that it sees the
> inner/outer divide as artificial. The dynamic/static one is MOQ's
> reality. Even worse is the misunderstanding that the MOQ has
> any affinity for SOM's subjective experience.
[Case]
I think MoQ presents a solution, not the only one BTW, to some of the
problems of SOM. I think it shows that static and dynamic values operate
internally and externally. But I do not think Pirsig says that SOM is to be
thrown out. Rather he points to a better way of understanding it.
Beyond that I think the separation between inner and outer is literal and
unbridgable. We are separated from the physical world by space and time. We
can do nothing more than preceive it with our senses and reshape it in our
heads.
>>[Case]
>> The outer is known to the extent that it is, because people decided to
>> quit arguing over inner ideals, about which we have no basis for
>> agreeing, and focused on those things that we can come to
>> intersubjective agreement about. I find it curious that a system with
>> the unknown at its heart and an avowed preferance for the dynamic can
>> be to so bogged down in a static heirarchy.
>[Bo]
> Thank you Case for taking an interest in these things (David M.
> backed out). This last paragraph of yours escapes me.
[Case]
I am saying that civilation has made striking advancements over the past 700
years because, starting with the rediscovery of Greek literature during the
crusades, Eupopeans began to concentrate on measureing and manipulating the
external world. Discussions about our internal private worlds are not very
productive because we have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing. If my wife
tells me she has a headache I can suspect she is just trying to get me to
leave her alone but I can hardly call her a liar. The same holds for any
discussion of consciousness and internal private events.
We make progress in the accumulation of knowledge by talking about those
things we do have some basis for agreeing on. The speed of light, the rate
of plant growth, crop yields, mathematics, etc are intersubjective in that
each of us in our own little worlds can find something in common to agree
about.
Finally I think the MoQ as expressed by most here, is totally bogged down in
this static hierarchical levels business, which as I have stated several
times in various places I find to be counterproductive. At the heart of the
MoQ is the undefined center, Quality. I take the meanings of Static and
Dynamic quite literally to mean Order and Chaos, Stabilty and Flux. Most
conflate DQ and Quality. This makes no sense to me at all.
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 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 20:36:51 BST