Hello everyone > Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:11:29 -0700 > Subject: Re: [MD] A World of Objects > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Hi Dan and all, >> >> [Joe] >> The eyeglasses that culture hands us are 'mechanical'. Is 'mechanical a >> useful >> term for discussing cultural behavior? The nation is composed of individuals. >> Are there mechanical nations, mechanical wars, >> mechanical societies, mechanical individuals? How widespread? > > [Dan] > Hi Joe, Good to hear from you! I am unsure just what you're getting at. > Perhaps you might elaborate. > > On Monday 31 March 2008 Joe responds: > > Hi Dan > > [Joe] > I am trying to distinguish a 'mechanical' act from a 'conscious' act in the > following quote from Pirsig. 'Culture' is a huge word!
[Dan] I think the MOQ defines culture as social and intellectual patterns of value (see LILA'S CHILD). > >> [Joe] >> I want to add the other quote about CULTURE: 'The CULTURE in which we >> live, hands us a set of intellectual glasses to interpret experience >> with, and the concept of the primacy of subjects and objects is built >> right into these glasses.' > > [Dan] > How does this tie in with mechanical nations, mechanical wars, etc.? > > [Joe] > Culture hands me a set of glasses to interpret experience. I interpret my > experience through these glasses. My experience is pre-interpreted and > mechanical. Is there Conscious part of me? Do I also consciously look > through those same glasses? Yes! The Conscious part of me interprets DQ. > This is undefined and underlies the mechanical part of experience. How can > I be so divided? When does it start? E.g. at the age of two I ran for my > life at the roar of a motorcycle. At 75 I barely lift a finger. My reaction > to the noise which started as a conscious flight for life is now mechanical! > The conscious part has been put to sleep as overkill. I now react > mechanically. [Dan] Okay. I understand better now. Thank you. But it would appear to me the flight of a two year old from a loud noise would also be considered mechanical, or 'instinctive' might be a better word? I would also doubt whether a two year old is self-conscious yet. I'm guessing that doesn't happen until age four or thereabouts. > >> [Joe] >> I may be overstressing how culture is mechanical, but we are steeped >> in culture and our thought may be mechanical. Is DQ conscious and SQ >> mechanical? > > [Dan] > I think it depends on how the terms are defined (or not) and in what > context. > > [Joe] > Does the definition of a term depend on the perception of value to create > the term, or only social acceptance? [Dan] In my opinion, it's best to stick to dictionary definitions in order to avoid confusion. >If I accept the social level as the > level of proprietary awareness (consciousness) then IMO definition belongs > to the intellectual level. Two elements are necessary for definition 'This > is!' [Dan] Who defined the social level as proprietary awareness? Certainly not Robert Pirsig. Please supply quotes to back up this assertion. >[Joe] > 'Definition' is an intellectual term, and 'culture' is a social term. [Dan] I respectfully disagree. Both are intellectual terms, imo. > Static Culture helps me forget the value of DQ and dream on. I can live > mechanically asleep as only a social entity not striving for awareness. In > a MOQ meta-level the intellectual level requires more scrutiny or it becomes > 'culture' and mechanical dogma. [Dan] I'm sorry Joe but I totally disagree with this. There is no 'MOQ meta-level' in Robert Pirsig's MOQ. I think you're straying into Bo's SOL here. That has very little to do with the MOQ proper, imo, of course. > >> >> >> [Joe previously 18 March to David M] >> >> IMO 'actions become unconscious'. As I read that I think mechanical. >> The MECHANICAL takes the place of the CONSCIOUS! What happens to the >> manifestation of what can only be the CONSCIOUS? Your example says a >> MECHANICAL sign. I don't think so. The MECHANICAL sign triggers a >> MECHANICAL action in the memory of a CONSCIOUS action, sleepwalking! I >> do not want to categorize DQ as conscious, and SQ as mechanical >> without a big deal in the metaphysics of evolution! Sleepwalking! >> >> [Joe] >> Am I asleep to 99.99% of my actions derived from culture? Is this what >> Persig is saying about culture? > > [Dan] > We're "asleep" to social patterns of value to the extent we don't recognize > them as such... subject-object metaphysicss, for example. It's easy to fall > into the trap of seeing subjects and objects as primary but the MOQ tells us > they're not. Quality doesn't reside in the subject or the object. > > [Joe] > I would also argue that by habit 99% of my activity is mechanical. I do not > remember it. I call it 'sleepwalking'. [Dan] In my opinion, awareness must be cultivated; otherwise, yes, we are asleep. Remember what the Buddha said? > > [Joe] > I am impressed with the value of AI. Memory is so important. Is DQ, like > evolution, an important value that can only be apprehended by CI? Is > conscious intelligence a value worth pursuing for an individual? E.g. is > there a MOQ meta-level? Are the terms like DQ/SQ only meaningful from a > conscious apprehension of value, a MOQ meta level? Why try to envision a > static/mechanical (manifest), dynamic/conscious (order) evolution? I am > musing here, Dan, and I apologize for drifting away, but it seems like a > proper question! [Dan] I take it what you mean by AI is artificial intelligence? If so, I am not qualified to answer. Again, I do not support any notion of a meta-level in the MOQ. I think it only confuses things without adding anything of value. Thanks again, Dan _________________________________________________________________ Test your Star IQ http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
