From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Tue Sep 02 2003 - 17:06:00 BST
Scott,
I am just trying to catch up with the conversations. This caught my attention:
"We are self-conscious. Because of that, the way we perceive by senses is not
the way animals or plants perceive by senses. Not that I know how they do,
but I think being self-conscious is going to change everything all the way
down. But I think that is a different topic."
I agree. However, I have come to believe that self-consciousness is only a
property of language. So, I don't think it really changes anything "all the way
down." It only changes how we talk about everything all the way down. Ameobas
are not self-conscious, but they have purpose in the sense that we do when we
get up in the morning. They just cannot put this purpose into a string of words
and symbols allowing them to cooperate with other ameobas in achieving these
goals. They can (I think-I am not really knowledgeable on how ameobas find
there food. Perhaps we can think of frogs instead) predict where food will be
in the future and place themselves in an advantageous position for securing
this food in the future. I think of this kind of purpose as "internal models"
using John Holland's term. But, self-consciousness and intelligence requires
language and descriptions within a language. When Matt and Rorty talk about
language as a tool for coping, I interpret that as humans have developed or
evolved the grandest of internal models. This model has given us an
evolutionary advantage for cooperation among other humans in "coping" or
surviving or gaining mastery over our environment. It has also created many
paradoxes which lead to such things as philosophy, self-consciousness, thoughts,
ideas, values, theories, intelligence and mind-numbing (at least in my case)
confusion.
This is the problem I see with using the term purpose for greater descriptions
of evolutionary "progress." I don't think there is anything special or
purposeful about self-consciousness. It is only an unintended result of a very
useful internal model. Only time will tell if this will be useful experiment in
evolutionary terms here on earth. Once humans are no longer here, I think it is
quite possible that intelligence in the universe and self-consciousness will
never again exist. It may be that language is too useful of an internal model
for any organism to have. The vast advantages that this tool has given humans
over other species MIGHT be creating an inbalance in nature which it is
presently in the process of correcting (i.e. we may be a very large version of
the ebola virus).
It doesn't really matter if the above assertion is correct. I happen to enjoy
this self-consciousness that language has given us along with all the
uncertainties and paradoxes. While we are here existing, I also think we can
achieve objectives towards enhancing the experiences of the majority of our
fellow humans on the planet. But, that might also be another topic. I just
wanted to put self-consciousness in perspective. It really isn't that big a
deal. We don't percieve the world by our senses much different than other
animals (at least, nothing that has anything to do with self-consciousness) we
just happen to have evolved an ability to talk about our perceptions in great
detail.
Regards,
Andy
> Bo,
>
> (I've changed the subject line to merge with the related discussion)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > ...if my sorting out of (your meaning) of where Pirsig "goes wrong" is
> > correct I hope you say that the S/O divide is of "high quality" and the
> > SOM is not. But we obviously don't see the same SOL. The "self
> > different from non-self" is so primary that I cant understand your using
> > it in this context. Even the proverbial amoeba knows that
>
> I disagree. I assume the amoeba is not self-conscious. It doesn't know that
> its food is not itself. It is our intellect that observes the distinction
> between the amoeba and its food.
>
> , while the
> > ability to look objectively upon things - the sceptical enquirer so to say
> > - had his birth when the old Greek thinkers started to look for a
> > permancy beyond the myths. I agree with the SO ...M as a post-
> > cartian development, but its cornerstone was laid by the Greeks.
> > Maybe your "things independent of me" is meant in this capacity and
> > not in the biological me/not me sense ...hopefully?
>
> Yes. And it (the S/O/divide) marks the intellectual level, in that it is
> only when people started thinking of themselves as the thinkers that we have
> intellect separated from the social.
>
> >
> > > This is why I say that the S/O divide should be seen as a case of the
> > > DQ/SQ divide.
> >
> > The subjective part of the SOM = DQ and the objective part = SQ
> > makes the MOQ into some Squonktailian rubbish that there are
> > thirteen to a dozen of these days ....even worse than making the
> > MOQ - DQ included - a STATIC intellectual pattern.
>
> I don't get this. Who is claiming that "the subjective part of the SOM =
> DQ", etc.?
>
> >
> > > It's too ingrained in us to be called a *static* pattern
> > > of value.
> >
> > I see your point here, but it's the fallacy of mixing the biological
> > self/not self into the subject/object divide.
>
> See above why they are not mixed.
>
> >
> > > Instead it is how the DQ/SQ divide takes form when we think,
> > > perceive, feel, and act, in our current stage of consciousness.
> >
> > Rather how reality is perceived from the curent intellectual stage. At
> > the biological stage we perceive by senses, at the social stage we
> > perceive by feelings (emotions) and at the intellect we perceive by
> > reason . "Consciousness"? We haven't reached that stage yet dear
> > Scott :-)
>
> We are self-conscious. Because of that, the way we perceive by senses is not
> the way animals or plants perceive by senses. Not that I know how they do,
> but I think being self-conscious is going to change everything all the way
> down. But I think that is a different topic.
>
> - 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 - 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 Sep 02 2003 - 17:08:44 BST