On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote:
Briefly, we can NOT think without language. It simply does not happen. Some > form of symbolic representation of our experience is required for us to > manipulate thoughts, and without social immersion (the recognition and > interaction with other intentional beings), we do not develop language. We > are so immersed in this milieu we scarcely can imagine or envision a life > without it. The best we can do is look at records of feral humans, take > personal histories such as those penned by Helen Keller who only as adults > came to be "socialized" beings, and study primates and pre-social > anthropological data (you have to go pretty far back). I think the evidence > shows that before a human being acquires some rudimentary symbols, s/he is > trapped in a world of purely biological responses to the ongoing flow of > experience. Arlo, This is a very interesting point and brings me to some deep and intense questioning of the MoQ hierarchy of levels with special emphasis upon the biological level. I bring some baggage to the table concerning nature as a source of value. But I'll touch on that later. As you point out... Pirsig says more on this. "Our scientific description of nature is always > culturally derived. Nature tells us only what our culture predisposes us to > hear. The selection of which inorganic patterns to observe and which to > ignore is made on the basis of social patterns of value, or when it is not, > on the basis of biological patterns of value. [JohnCarl] My question revolves around what happens when a culture's values lose their grounding in the "biological patterns of value". My kneejerk analysis is that they then become, by definition, unnatural, warped and doomed. Thus reference to this "lower pattern" of Quality is vital for any society or any idea. I make this point because I believe there is a problem with the concept of "fallen nature", which entered mankind's cultural/language system from far enough back that it persists as a values problem to this day. Causing problems in philosophy as well as language. [Arlo (quoting pirsig)] Descartes' "I think therefore I am" was a historically shattering > declaration of independence of the intellectual level of evolution from the > social level of evolution, but would he have said it if he had been a > seventeenth century Chinese philosopher? If he had been, would anyone in > seventeenth century China have listened to him and called him a brilliant > thinker and recorded his name in history? If Descartes had said, "The > seventeenth century French culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I > am," he would have been correct." (LILA) [JohnCarl] Here I would go a little deeper than the author. For the true definition of human self, the self needs non-human nature to observe, contrast and define. I'm a man because I'm not a giraffe, or a flower or ... And these "things" we observe and define are viewed through the lens of our culture, true enough. Nevertheless the sage proclaims that the self IS defined by the ten thousand things and rational intution confirms this. Descartes should have said "I think (about other) therefore I am." Ten thousand things - biological patterns of value - Nature. All synonyms representing something of "lower" value, according to the MoQ. And this has been a sticking point in my craw that I'm hoping you can help me with. For I cut my first philosophical teeth with a George Sessions class in logic and his thesis was on anthropocentrism in the modern environmentalist movement. It was he who introduced me to ZMM in the long distant past... From him I inherited a distaste for hierarchies evolving upward to the mighty man and his intellect at the apex. [Arlo] Let me ask you this, if mental patterns do not originate out of society, > from where do they? Does the brain, independent of any social participation, > generate mental patterns on its own? Where do the symbols come from? Are the > innate? Genetic? Would all pre-language humans, whether they or Chinese or > English, think more with pretty much identical mental patterns? [JohnCarl] The perception of quality occurs at the interaction between the organism and its environment. This is fundamental, right? But even in the face of differing cultures and languages, there are fundamentals in nature that produce a commonality in man. These arise from similar organisms interacting to a similar environment. My big bugaboo is when the culture gets ripped too far from nature. [Arlo] Anyways, this is off the topic of PC, and has been discussed here several > times in the past year or so (at least). > [JohnCarl] Yes, I feel somewhat sheepish for interjecting my comments and questions into your thread, which is why I switched topics. This must have been all covered in detail before. But in that case, you've got the answers and I'd be really grateful for some insight. How does one reconcile a system of value which defines morality in terms of intellectual, hierarchical dominance, when a lower biological level actually contains all the important and fundamental source of value for man's comfort and happiness? [Arlo] This gets back to what I think is the contextual question here. Why are so > many Americans habituated to unhealthy eating? Does this cross over into > Marsha's concerns about "neuromarketing"? Add also, or Pirsig's view from > ZMM? "Along the streets that lead away from the apartment he can never see > anything through the concrete and brick and neon but he knows that buried > within it are grotesque, twisted souls forever trying the manners that will > convince themselves they possess Quality, learning strange poses of style > and glamour vended by dream magazines and other mass media, and paid for by > the vendors of substance." (ZMM) [JohnCarl] Bingo! Right there! Grotesque twisted souls trapped in brick and neon. The perfect picture of a culture ripped from it's biological roots. Thanks for the time. I sure appreciate your thoughts and insight. 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/
