From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 02:03:58 GMT
Hi Ian (Mike mentioned) --
> Earlier in this thread Arlo made a wonderful jibe
> about people living in glass houses, which seemed
> to pass unanswered.
>
> Erin's response just tipped me off to your unwitting
> reference to me.
> [Ham Quoted] [Erin quoting McKenna] believes the
> world is made of language.
> [Ian reinforced] The world is made of information (full stop).
I unwittingly did NOT credit you for the closing remark, for which I
apologize, although I'm not sure this oversight qualifies me as living in a
glass house.
Erin has since confirmed his belief in today's post:
> 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'll admit to finding semiotics even less comprehensible than the MoQ; but
what is most incomprehensible of all is how anyone could envision reality as
made up of symbols and words. I'm not sufficiently elitist to believe that
the language of my ancesters, which evolved from cross-cultural influences
over many centuries, is my reality. The ability to use language is just one
of man's attributes and, despite insistence by some that all thoughts
involve language, I believe most concepts and evaluations are not words or
statements at all.
Indeed, language is the least of the attributes I would list under
subjectivity. Defining self-awareness are emotions such as awe, joy,
sorrow, pain, disgust; cognitive values such as beauty, freedom, excellence,
magnificence; and there is desire which compels us to work toward specific
goals. These are all propietary aspects of our subjectivity, and none of
them is dependent on words or logical propositions.
> Cybernetics has nothing whatsoever to with creating AI to replicate
> man - except in Hollywood and comic books.
Unfortunately, such ideas are not mere science fiction.
Cyberneticists frequently refer to 'semiotic constructs' in their work on
AI. I've heard more than one interview with a New Age cybernetics
researcher who thought that it was possible to replicate the electrical
patterns of brain activity in a computer, or as a chip implanted in man, and
thereby create a high form of "intelligence".
The fact that people believe in such notions has already diminished the
value of human subjectivity. This is why I take exception to their being
considered in the context of Pirsig's philosophy. It would be a stretch of
the imagination to believe that this kind of thinking was how the author
intended his MoQ to evolve. It's just another way to put down individuality
and pretend that the proprietary self is nothing but an artifact of
biological evolution.
I know you don't like to hear these things, Ian, and you reject my
philosophy of Essence. But as one who has some reservations about the MoQ,
I think it is fair to say that these ideas demean Pirsig's Quality thesis as
well as my own philosophy.
At the same time, by recognizing subjectivity as fundamental to existence,
Michael has taken a step that may allow the author's metaphysics to be
formulated in a more coherent way. I'm willing to give this a chance. What
about you?
Best regards,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 02:28:39 GMT