From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 08:14:36 GMT
Hi Michael --
I had said:
> The important thing is that you
> recognize that subjectivity is proprietary to the individual self.
You replied:
> That looks like a tautology to me, but okay.
That would be a tautology if the proprietary nature of awareness was
acknowledged in this group. But let me rephrase it in your words. By
asserting your belief that "the subject/object divide is fundamental to what
we are", which is "separate intelligences who feel that they are separate",
you have defined the individuality of awareness. And I consider that an
important step toward a more rational epistemology.
I had also said:
> 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.
This, apparently, opened a new can of worms:
> 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.
I hadn't wanted to get into the "levels" thing because I never really
understood it. How can language, which is the expression of individual
subjects, "predate subjectivity"? What am I missing here?
Also, I can't see how language "constructs and preserves reality in human
consciousness". It may preserve concepts we've spoken or written about
reality for society, but not for the individual whose concepts may not even
be lingual. For example, if I have a mental picture of the earth and moon
orbiting the sun, it is not a "word picture" unless I communicate it in
words. Only then does my concept depend on words.
You bring up another aspect of quality levels that I suspected, but never
was told by the author or anyone else: apparently, we are to infer that the
levels apply to evolution in time. Thus, as you say:
> 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".
Do you mean to say that reality changed when humans became less
"mythological" and more "scientific"? Now that IS mystical! I don't know
what "participatory reality" is supposed to mean, as you yourself said: "I
retract any claim that social- or mythological-level human beings did not
distinguish between self or other", so there was subjectivity fron the dawn
of human history. I've always assumed that the Reformation came about
because thinking people wanted to break away from church authority. The
movement changed history, all right, but surely reality is more than
history. I realize that Pirsig fancied himself an anthropologist of sorts,
and the MoQ is an "evolutionary thesis", but I think it's stretching things
to equate evolution with reality -- or with philosophy, for that matter.
> I believe that language and consciousness (and "reality") are
> inextricably bound together, so I'm able to agree substantially with
> BOTH these credos!
I agree, in general, that language is a 'subset' of conscious activity, and
as such is bound to our reality experience. But there's a 180 degree
difference between conceptualizing reality as words and symbols and
conceptualizing it as consciousness. Agreeing with both assertions strikes
me as somewhat undiscriminating on your part.
> 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.
Indeed it is. And, indeed, it's what I am pondering and hypothesizing in my
philosophy of Essence. I note that you are again stating the emergence of
subjectivity as an historical event -- "how we CAME to feel", as opposed to
"how we COME to feel". As an essentialist, I see creation and intellectual
development as an ongoing process. Thus, I would use the present tense and
say that Essence "creates" and proprietary awareness "arises".
Clearly you and I have different views of reality. Perhaps we can reach
some accord on the levels issue at a later time. But not now. I don't want
a metaphysical dispute to spoil my pleasure in your declaration that the
subject/object divide is fundamental to reality.
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 - 08:35:44 GMT