From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 13:35:31 GMT
Hi Scott,
Sorry to confuse you. I never thought you agreed with
Ham's position. I was surprised you agreed with his
summary of "my" position which you corrected was your
position. LOL I don't know if that is any less
confusing?? I don't agree with Ian/Arlo/Pirsig that
we evolved into language. But Ham's summary of
language waiting there and humans latching onto it
sounded more like that evolving into langauge idea.
Is this any clearer or just more confusion??
But I'm not sure if I misread Ham's summary and so was
asking you about it.
I don't think I completely understand what you are
saying but I think what I think is closer to your
ideas than Ian's. The reason is because I find the
argument that language didn't evolve out of
non-language convincing....so when you talk about
participation and the tree and that is better to think
of it as the same type of intellect that makes sense
to me.
I think where you lose is me can be seen your
summarization of my position....all that we experience
(including individuality) is semiotic, but whether
that's true of non-human experience is unknown.
I guess I am struggling with from reconciling the idea
that yes the tree does have the same
language/intellect as me but yes a tree experience is
still unknown to me. Although it is the same type of
language/intellect I think others interpret it as the
tree is intelligent (in the Pirsigian used sense).
Many posts to you about this frustrate me because they
argue against your position but still using Pirsig
definition of intellect. Maybe even I even am doing
that now??
Let me put it this way and maybe you can help clarify
at where I lose you. I don't have a problem saying
that the tree intellect is the same type as my
intellect but I what I don't know is the tree
perspective....does the tree intellect not percieve my
intellect? does it appear different? does it also
appear the same?
I tried to be clearer ..don't know if actually worked.
Erin
--- Scott Roberts < > wrote:
> Erin (Arlo, Ian, Ham mentioned),
>
> Well, now I'm confused. I thought I was disagreeing
> with Ham's position
> (that "Not only is man the inventor and sole user of
> language, intellect is
> his proprietary gift"). What it looks like is that I
> may have mistaken your
> position. That is, Ham (and Pirsig, and Arlo and
> Ian) hold that there was no
> language/intellect, but now there is, but only in
> humans. My understanding
> of your position was that you were "on the fence"
> about this -- that you
> quoted McKenna as a possibility, but not as a
> statement of what you are
> committed to. But that you at least agree with Arlo
> that all that *we*
> experience is semiotic, while Ham, I think, would
> say that experiencing
> ourselves as individuals is pre-lingusitic. So in my
> reply to Ham, I wanted
> to point out that the position that Ham was calling
> absurd ("The idea that
> 'Intellect' and 'Language' are not indigenous to
> human thought but hang
> around in some esthetic limbo waiting for man to
> 'latch onto' or 'evolve to'
> them is absurd") was only my position, not Arlo's or
> (or so I thought)
> yours. So, let me see if this summary of positions
> is accurate (anyone
> mentioned, feel free to correct)
>
> Ham: language and intellect are properties of humans
> only, while
> individuality is pre-linguistically an essence of
> humans.
> Arlo (and Ian and Pirsig, I think): language and
> intellect are properties of
> humans only, while individuality is a concept (that
> is, is linguistic),
> useful in getting along with the environment .
> Scott: language and intellect are what the universe
> consists of, and humans
> are individuals insofar as we are aware of ourselves
> as exploiting language
> creatively (and that 'essence' is just another word
> for 'concept').
> Erin (?): all that we experience (including
> individuality) is semiotic, but
> whether that's true of non-human experience is
> unknown.
>
> Does this help?
>
> - Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erin" < >
> To: < >
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:48 PM
> Subject: Re: MD Looking for the Primary Difference
>
>
> Scott,
>
> Could you clarify this for me?
> I was surprised that you agreed to what Ham wrote
> below.
> When I first read this I got an image of us evolving
> into language....I didn't agree with it because I
> thought it was saying we evolved from no
> language/intellect to language/intellect. When you
> said you were the one who had said it I went back
> and
> read it again because it didn't really seem
> consistent
> with your posts. I am not sure if my original
> reading
> was wrong or I am missing something. Is this saying
> there are higher levels of intellegience and
> language
> that we tap into..That makes more sense to me.
>
> Erin
>
>
> > Ham,
> >
> > Ham said [to Erin]:
> > The idea that 'Intellect' and 'Language' are not
> > indigenous to human thought
> > but hang around in some esthetic limbo waiting for
> > man to 'latch onto' or
> > 'evolve to' them is absurd. One must have a
> strong
> > aversion to
> > individuality in order to believe such nonsense.
> > Not only is man the
> > inventor and sole user of language, intellect is
> his
> > proprietary gift.
> > Through the use of his intellect and language, man
> > is the 'choicemaker' of
> > the physical world. That's MY explanation.
> >
> > Scott:
> > Actually, I think I'm the only one around here who
> > says unequivocally that
> > there is intellect and language outside the human
> > context. This does NOT
> > imply "a strong aversion to individuality",
> however.
> > See my 11/2 post in the
> > "Quality, subjectivity, and the 4th level" thread
> > for why it doesn't.
> >
> > - Scott
> >
>
>
>
> 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 -
>
> 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 -
>
> 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 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 16:50:00 GMT