From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Nov 01 2005 - 17:37:31 GMT
Ham,
1) the first quote is McKennas and I brought it in
understanding whether the idea of pre-intellectual
should be dropped
2) The sentence after the quote is Ian's
I will tell you my thoughts on it now.
For me I can not think of how you can perceive reality
without semiotics so no I don't see a reality beyond
language...but I still hold the possibility of an
external world beyond semiotics but that is beyond my
ability to ever comprehend one so don't find it useful
in "believing" in one.
I don't buy the idea that when you are high on drugs
you lose the internal/external distinction....when you
are tripping you may believe that you are ONE with the
tree you are hugging but you still have meaning of
"treeness" and "meness" with the meaning "oneness".
I can't think of one single moment where semiotics was
not involved in creating my reality so don't find it
useful philosophizing about one but I don't go to the
point where I suggest there is nothing beyond my
semiotic reality. It's more of there is no way for me
to know a reality beyond semitiocs and I haven't seen
anything you wrote that has been evidence that you
can.
For me reality is my conception of the external (thus
semitioc) for you I think reality is the external??? I
think
So basically what you wrote about me I disagree
with...I don't have a problem with subjectivity or the
internal/external divide.
Erin
--- hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Hi Mike --
>
> You said:
>
>
> > It's the 4th level at which thoughts become MY
> > thoughts, YOUR thoughts. Subjectivity doesn't go
> > any deeper than that. Language and society do not,
> > of themselves, require it. Neither does your body.
> > Neither do the atoms composing your body.
>
> I don't really care what you do with Pirsig's "4th
> level"; it's a mystical
> metaphor, as far as I'm concerned. The important
> thing is that you
> recognize that subjectivity is proprietary to the
> individual self. That, I
> think, is a definitive breakthrough for the MoQ, and
> one which can at last
> facilitate a workable metaphysics.
>
> Subjectivity doesn't have to "go any deeper than
> that", nor do language and
> society, for that matter, as they are only the
> collective tools and
> expressions --
> the "objective results" -- of individual
> subjectivity. By their failure to
> accept subjectivity, several here have resorted to
> theories of language
> (semiotics) as the creator of existence.
>
> For example, on 10/18 Erin quoted McKenna:
>
> > "I don't believe the world is made of quarks or
> > electromagnetic waves, or stars, or planets, or
> any
> > of these things. I believe the world is
> > made of language"
> >
> > The world is made of information (full stop) -
> > I have little doubt.
>
> That kind of thinking, along with the notion that
> cybernetics will use
> "artificial
> intelligence' to replicate man and enhance the
> intellectual level, is the
> New Age mindset that has infected the MoQ to the
> detriment of its author.
> There is no need or logical justification for this
> nonsense.
>
> Compare Erin's semiotic reality with Donald
> Hoffman's personal credo, for
> which I'm indebted to Platt Holden:
>
> "I believe that consciousness and its contents are
> all that exists.
> Space-time, matter and fields never were the
> fundamental denizens of the
> universe, but have always been, from the beginning,
> among the humbler
> contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their
> very being. The world
> of our daily experience-the world of tables, chairs,
> stars and people, with
> their attendant shapes, smells, feels and sounds-is
> a species-specific user
> interface to a realm far more complex, a realm whose
> essential character is
> conscious. ... If this be right, if consciousness
> is fundamental, then we
> should not be surprised that, despite centuries of
> effort by the most
> brilliant minds, there is as yet no physical theory
> of consciousness, no
> theory that explains how mindless matter and energy
> or fields could be, or
> cause, conscious experience."
>
> -- Hoffman,
> "Visual Intelligence"
>
> It isn't necessary to reject subjectivity in order
> to support the Quality
> concept; indeed, as you have so eloquently pointed
> out, it is foolhardy to
> do so: "the subject/object divide is fundamental to
> what we are."
>
> Now that you have an epistemology that makes sense,
> the challenge that
> remains is to develop a rationale for the
> subject/object divide -- that is,
> a metaphysical hypothesis to explain its undivided
> source (essence). Since
> the MoQ is predicated on Quality as the essence of
> reality, I anticipate
> that you or your colleagues will eventually see your
> way to postulating such
> a hypothesis, thereby completing the task abandoned
> by its author.
>
> 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
>
>
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 Nov 01 2005 - 17:44:32 GMT