From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 01 2005 - 21:31:01 GMT
Greetings Ham,
> > 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.
> Ham:
> I don't really care what you do with Pirsig's "4th level"; it's a mystical
> metaphor, as far as I'm concerned.
Mike:
Mystical metaphor? I haven't the faintest clue what you mean by this.
To me, the transition from 3rd level to 4th level is the transition
from mythological/participatory reality to intellectual/scientific
reality. It's the beginning of subjective intelligence, and therefore
something that I would expect you to treat as more substantial than a
"mystical metaphor".
Ham:
> The important thing is that you
> recognize that subjectivity is proprietary to the individual self.
Mike
That looks like a tautology to me, but okay.
Ham:
> 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.
Mike:
Whoa, whoa there. Language and society pre-date subjectivity. Language
is not "only" a "collective tool" of individual subjectivity, it is
that which contructs and preserves reality in human consciousness. It
is that which constructs and preserves subjectivity itself.
Ham:
> 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"
>
> 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"
Mike:
I believe that language and consciousness (and "reality") are
inextricably bound together, so I'm able to agree substantially with
BOTH these credos!
Ham:
> 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."
Mike:
Nothing but agreement here.
Ham:
> 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.
Mike:
Well, the undivided source of subjects and objects is Quality. I don't
see the need for any more theorising about that. As for the question
of exactly HOW we came to feel that value and meaning spring from
inside our subjective consciousnesses, and not from the gods or the
planets or the "4 humours" or one's social status... now THERE is
something to ponder.
Regards,
Mike
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 Nov 02 2005 - 00:51:28 GMT