On Monday 28 April 2008 Ron writes to Arlo, SA: Arlo: > Semiosis is, of course, a better term, since we > "read" symbols like "a red sunset² in particular culturally adopted > ways, but underlying this is that you had to have learned HOW to read > that particular sign, and our culture in nigh ubiquitous in using > words to impart this knowledge. SA: Ok. What's a word? What's semiosis? Either I find this strain of the mind to learn these basic points, pointless in the end, or maybe knowing the difference will get us somewhere? I don't know. If semiosis accounts for all symbols, whether they are words, numbers, paintings, etc..., then couldn't we start from here and then move on to what Ron was trying to say? We moved so far off point, it seems, just to prove points on details, but wasn't Ron's point that we come at the moq from different language contexts? Let's focus on this, and move on, don't ya think? Ron: Yes sir, what I was trying to stress was how languages Treat nouns. I noticed how Pirsig, by using DQ/SQ To described the abstract/concrete distinction is very Similar to how eastern languages treat and describe nouns, as passive/Active. We make these distinctions unconsciously, every time We form a sentence. This also stands to reason, how Arlo was expressing, that words evoke conceptual understanding. We understand intellectually by the words we use and how We use them. We understand, without anyone telling us what class a noun is in. If my wife told me she lost her happiness, I would not start searching The house for it, but if she lost her key, I would. Happiness and key are both nouns, but why would I look for one And not the other? Because key is concrete and happiness is abstract. Key is objective and happiness is subjective. What about the noun Chair? It may be both concrete and abstract, depending on it's use In a sentence. Consequently it shapes how we conceptualize the word Chair As an objective, concrete, static or an abstract, subjective, dynamic. One is something you sit on the other is a position held. Just one example of how grammar dictates understanding and meaning. I could give examples all day and people still would say that my Position was extreme and absurd but can't give any reasons WHY. It's in the SODV paper, science is limited by what you can say about Observable phenomena. It is limited by how our language identifies and classifies experience. This is why I say, in many ways Bo is correct When he states that SOM is intellect. Intellect is how we parse up Experience whether it be s/o, passive/active, self/other, male/female Grammatically.
<snip> Hi Ron, Arlo, SA, and all I have difficulty with the word ³abstract² used for DQ! In SOM ³abstract² has an existence only in the mind. Practically, then, an individual is composed of body/soul which presupposes a ³real² and ³intentional² existence, as proposed by Aristotle. "Intentional" existence is created by the mind. It abstracts the essence of a thing and gives it "intentional" existence in the mind. A word describes this abstracted essence. Pirsig did not see existence in that way. In place of "intentional" existence he proposed DQ, undefined existence. The mind, as a special faculty to create its own existence, was eliminated. Instead he proposed a social level of proprietary awareness (consciousness) and an intellectual level of law (the relationship of two or more) as ways of knowing. He saw problems in different capabilities. He proposed four levels of evolution as a division of existence. Four levels of existence in an evolution of order, are levels in DQ. Only analogy or metaphor can be used to describe an order of existence. Esoteric literature has used the musical octave as a metaphor/analogy for levels of evolution, levels of "order" in existence. Persig calls the order of evolution/existence DQ! SQ describes the manifest. Three things are observed in the word ³chair² what it is, what it isn¹t, in what medium it exists. Again esoteric literature metaphorically uses a law of three for "manifestation". IMO. Joe On 4/28/08 9:19 AM, "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Arlo: >> Semiosis is, of course, a better term, since we >> "read" symbols like "a red >> sunset" in particular culturally adopted ways, but >> underlying this is that you >> had to have learned HOW to read that particular >> sign, and our culture in nigh >> ubiquitous in using words to impart this knowledge. > > SA: Ok. What's a word? What's semiosis? Either I > find this strain of the mind to learn these basic > points, pointless in the end, or maybe knowing the > difference will get us somewhere? I don't know. If > semiosis accounts for all symbols, whether they are > words, numbers, paintings, etc..., then couldn't we > start from here and then move on to what Ron was > trying to say? We moved so far off point, it seems, > just to prove points on details, but wasn't Ron's > point that we come at the moq from different language > contexts? Let's focus on this, and move on, don't ya > think? > > Ron: > Yes sir, what I was trying to stress was how languages > Treat nouns. I noticed how Pirsig, by using DQ/SQ > To described the abstract/concrete distinction is very > Similar to how eastern languages treat and describe nouns, > as passive/Active. We make these distinctions unconsciously, > every time We form a sentence. This also stands to reason, > how Arlo was expressing, that words evoke conceptual > understanding. > We understand intellectually by the words we use and how > We use them. > We understand, without anyone telling us what class a noun is in. > If my wife told me she lost her happiness, I would not start searching > The house for it, but if she lost her key, I would. > Happiness and key are both nouns, but why would I look for one > And not the other? Because key is concrete and happiness is abstract. > Key is objective and happiness is subjective. What about the noun > Chair? It may be both concrete and abstract, depending on it's use > In a sentence. Consequently it shapes how we conceptualize the word > chair > As an objective, concrete, static or an abstract, subjective, dynamic. > One is something you sit on the other is a position held. > Just one example of how grammar dictates understanding and meaning. > I could give examples all day and people still would say that my > Position was extreme and absurd but can't give any reasons WHY. > It's in the SODV paper, science is limited by what you can say about > Observable phenomena. It is limited by how our language identifies and > classifies experience. This is why I say, in many ways Bo is correct > When he states that SOM is intellect. Intellect is how we parse up > Experience whether it be s/o, passive/active, self/other, male/female > Grammatically. > > The thoughts/language debate is beside the point, we can posit that > thoughts > Exist independent of intellectualization without any consequence to my > Hypothesis for the point is on the focus of intellect. Which is built > And dictated by language symbiotically , Arlo has made that argument > very well if you ask me. > If intellect is suspended in language then it is only reasonable to > asses > That intellectual thought must obey the very same rules of grammar. > > Trying to get everyone to understand this here is tough, people > Love their own brand of tea! They are comfortable swishing it, it > Comforts them and gives them a base for the same old discussions > Which they are content to rehash with rehearsed relish. > Your Right SA, people have too much invested in their own > Views to change, they have been looking at the problem as if it existed > in reality for so long that to think otherwise is insane! > To suggest that the s/o distinction lies in the mere classification > Of nouns is ludicrous! > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ____________ > Be a better friend, newshound, and > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > 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/ > 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/ 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/
