From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 18:58:19 BST
[MH]
> I couldn't stop myself from inserting some responses to Case. I hope
> you don't see this as stealing your thunder, Bo!
[Case]
No problem everyone is welcome here!
>> [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.
>
> MH replies:
> How do you suppose that the distinction between an "inner
> representation" and an "outer world" or "physical world" was arrived
> at, unless it was arrived at by thinking? Once this objective world is
> postulated, it exists independently of our thought-processes, and
> independantly of our postulation of it, by definition. We can't think
> of it in any other way, and so it is a struggle to see that,
> historically speaking, it is brought into being by thinking (bearing
> in mind that by "being", I mean Quality or experience).
[Case]
I am a solopsist by nature and a materialist through an act of faith. I can
not prove the external world exists. I just carry on as though it does. But
I do occassionally have doubts. I regard questions about the nature of
perception to be empirical questions not subjects of ideal speculation. And
I do not think the existence of the material world is dependant on my
awareness of it.
> Case continued:
>> 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.
> MH replies:
> Interesting, but I don't think it's relevant to the subject/object
> distinction. The chimp shows awareness of itself, but this is not
> necessarily dependent on any postulation by the chimp of an objective,
> physical reality that is independent of experience (Quality).
[Case]
Whether or not chimps lay awake at night pondering their relationship to the
cosmos or not I can not say. I do wonder how relevant such pondering is. It
is clearly not required to survive or to have a functional society.
> Case continued:
>> 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.
> MH:
> Hopefully I've explained what I consider to be the fundamental
> difference, although obviously I can't speak for Bo.
[Case]
Well, no I don't believe you have explained it. It what way is moden culture
fundementally different from tribal culture except in it's concite?
>> [Case]
>> We have little reason to think that prehistoric man was in any way
>> different
>> from historic man.
> MH:
> We have still less reason to think that prehistoric man conceived of
> sensation as "inner representation of an outer world".
[Case]
I think the evidence in favor of this is overwhelming. There is evidence of
burial rituals, cave drawing, legends, creation stories and on and on.
>> [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.
> MH:
> Yes, as recent history clearly demonstrates, the "outer world" is an
> extremely useful postulation. However, I think it's totally possible
> to redescribe the kind of scientific practice you're talking about, in
> a Quality-centric way, so that it does not depend on reducing our idea
> of "reality" to an inaccessable, independent, outer world. This
> deserves a new topic, and some writing time that I don't have right
> now!
[Case]
It is not our conception of reality that is inaccessible. It is reality
itself. By the time it registers on our senses reality has moved on. In
addition while evolution provides us with a servicable set of senses they
are by no means complete. Our apprention of reality it in principle
incomplete, undefined if you will.
> Case continued:
>> 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.
> MH:
> I think I agree with you here. For some reason, Pirsig's evolutionary
> hierarchy, an extremely useful analytical tool, is causing no end of
> problems. One problem, I think, is the sheer weight of philosophical
> baggage carried by the word "intellect". A convenient label, but a
> problematic one.
> I'm only willing to equate DQ with Quality if DQ is defined (!) as
> including (but obviously not limited to) SQ. Otherwise, it looks like
> saying that DQ is "real" while SQ is "unreal". I wonder if any DQ=Q
> people can tell us whether or not this what they are doing? Any
> takers?
[Case]
I think it is the willingness to equate Quality with anything at all that is
flawed. It is even worse to equate it with one of its aspect: DQ.
If you elect to define DQ as I do as Chaos then you have in effect equated
DQ and SQ since Order can be shown to be a manifestation of Chaos. You also
end up disabusing yourself of the fuzzy notion that DQ the highest good.
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 : Tue Oct 04 2005 - 19:17:25 BST