HI Arlo, A lot of information, I don't think I can reply to all of it, I am not familiar with many of the authors you site. I don't believe it takes collective thought or references to make something true within.
I believe that the unhealthy lifestyle we are talking about is a result of people trying to satisfy an inner need with outer stimulation. Our whole culture is geared around such projection, outside stimuli are illusional. It has gone so far that it would appear many think that outer stimuli is all. I could go on about this, but I would be saying the same thing. Once authors believe they are able to tell what people are thinking I think they should be suspect. Behavior may or may not reflect thinking. What units are thoughts measured in? I believe that if Descartes had said "I can, therefore I am" he would have been closer to the truth. We are not our thoughts, far from that. Once one identifies with his thoughts he sacrifices much more. Yes, of course the brain generates mental patterns of its own without society. We do not think due to society, society is an outcome. Try and feel when a thought becomes language, that transition can be noticed. I have no trouble thinking without words. Some of my most meditative hikes are ones where I refuse to name things I see. As I said before, thoughts arise out of feelings, thoughts then create language. Even rational thought has no language until it is translated for communication. Obviously, I cannot convey this with language. As I think you state, Quality (as I understand it) reflects feelings, that is the intimate contact within and without. That kind of thinking is as pervasive as the kind of thinking that generates language for communication. It is no different. The transfer of feelings (which is what we are doing) goes like this: feelings to thought to communication to (another's) understanding, thoughts and then feelings. Obviously much is lost in the process. It is like trying to describe the ocean one cup at a time. Do the connections between the neurons in the brain operate through language? No, they are chemical in nature. I think what I was trying to say about making healthcare a societal issue rather than a personal one is that there is a danger of making the general more important than the specific. I suppose freedom (whatever that may mean to you) is at stake. While I am not supporting complete anarchy, I am closer to that than to "complete" government (societal) control, which we are much closer to than anarchy. I believe the responsible individual is of more importance than the responsible society. I do not believe in insurance of any kind. I believe subjugating oneself through fear (some may call this responsibility, but not me) only detracts from the reality of life. I do not fear death, pain or suffering, to try to run from these is impossible, to walk through them is easy. Cheers, Willblake2 On May 15, 2009, at 7:48:53 AM, "Arlo Bensinger" <[email protected]> wrote: [WillBlake] I agree that language shapes our thoughts. More importantly, language restricts our thoughts, but is essential for communication. [Arlo] Both Bourdieu (habitus) and Archer/Giddens/etc (structuration) talk about the mutually enabling/restricting aspects of "language". [WillBlake] A good example of this is the difference in thinking between the Chinese and Americans, symbols v words. [Arlo] George Lakoff (and others) have written about inter-cultural structure variance in language that leads to whole-scale differences in thinking and acting. Another form this takes is in the underlying "metaphors" of our language (or, I prefer, "languaculture" (Agar)). Example, in English "arguing" follows a "war" metaphor. We win arguments, the other person loses. "I was winning that argument until she brought out the big guns". It is confrontational. In Spanish, "arguing" follows a "dance" metaphor. You don't win, you "lead". It is not confrontation as much as it is orchestration. In Russian, the concept of "privacy" implies sneakiness, underhandedness, shady dealings, deception and manipulation. In English, of course, "privacy" has a very different metaphorical web. [WillBlake] I would disagree that mental patterns originate out of society, I am still trying to figure out what Pirsig means by his hierarchy, I do not see the world that way, yet. [Arlo] I think this is one of the more salient aspects of the MoQ, and I am glad he held his guns here to keep the MoQ both internally consistent and inline with our broadening understanding of language. I think one of they key tie-ins here is with the socio-cultural tradition (Vygotsky, Leon'tev, Bakhtin, e.g.). Although not explicitly "Pirsigian", the book "The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition" by Tomasello presents (in my opinion) the single best exposition of the historical transition between "biological patterns" and "social patterns". 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. 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. 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) 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? Anyways, this is off the topic of PC, and has been discussed here several times in the past year or so (at least). [WillBlake] We do not think through language, but translate our thoughts into language. [Arlo] I'd say we translate our experiences into language. Or rather, we encode them symbolically, which allows us to remove ourselves from the immediate moment and see "past" and "future". There is no "thinking" pre-language (what would you think with?), only a perception of Quality unlabeled or described. As we assimilate a language (a symbolic repertoire for encoding experience), we are only then able to "think" as we translate those moments of experience into abstract "ideas" or "concepts". [WillBlake] I do disagree that we should alleviate the "burden to society" by directly connecting one's eating habits and the overall well-being of a society. [Arlo] Well, my point is that society already does carry this burden though the high-cost of emergency room procedures and the like, and also disability. Pay a little now, or pay a lot later, seems to be the choices we have. I think the government, which oversees this burden, is moral in its involvement. I suppose, you could argue that society should not carry any burden whatsoever, which would be possible only if emergency rooms denied outright any treatment to anyone unable to pay upfront. If an obese man was rushed in suffering from a heart attack, and had no medical insurance or ability to pay, he would be wheeled out onto the curb. Even hospitals that perform "free" services defray these costs by raising the expense to paying consumers. "Free" drugs by pharmaceuticals mean higher costing pills to those who pay. That is the capitalist model. That is what Rush says every time he says that taxing businesses only increase the cost to the consumer. Businesses, which our hospital/pharmaceuticals are most definitely, would never lose profit to just give things away, they simply defer the costs to another consumer group. [WillBlake] While I believe in a responsible society, this should come from within. [Arlo] I don't disagree with you, but as I said there already is a burden we share, socially, for the cost of poor health. Unless you are proposing some sort of system that denies any socially-underwritten expense to those in need of medical treatment, you can't really avoid this, all you can do is work to minimize it. [WillBlake] It is easier to blame the company, than the victimized individual. [Arlo] Well, this is part of a larger game of demonizing by both sides. Everyone has a bugbear they go after. I'm not talking about blaming a company, though, not at all. Indeed, I have no problem with "unhealthy" foods at all, I think in moderation few will do you much harm. A few cans of soda here and there won't leave you with diabetes or obesity. I am talking overall health habits related to diet and exercise, not singling out this or that food item. And as such, again, I think its within the governments role to disseminate this information, and support infrastructural development that encourages this (bike paths, as I said, for example). I do not think its within the governments role to punish people for certain choices that may not reflect unhealthy habits. [WillBlake] While I'm sure there could be extreme examples brought up as to where curtailing one's rights is good (legalizing cocaine, for example) the common sense of dictating what people should do for the greater good should be examined. [Arlo] Much as you seem to think I like to argue absolution through hyperbole, my points all along has been that we need to be able to sit down and look at specific things and make determinations about them being good or bad in and off themselves; cocaine regulations can not justify soda regulations, but then being against the ban on soda can't be used to imply the immorality of building bike paths. [WillBlake] When you speak of the "single biggest single health item affecting our diet", you are lumping everybody together, those that drink soda responsibly and those that don't. [Arlo] Well, I was speaking in terms of the American diet as a whole, like saying car accidents is a leading cause of death doesn't imply any real connection to individuals who may drive responsibly, but it is nonetheless true. With soda, I believe, the problem is in the sheer quantities many drink it. I know more than a dozen people in my immediate daily experience who consume upwards of eight cans of soda a day. While there are more unhealthy foods out there, there are none we as a country consume nearly as much as we consume soda. Do I think soda is evil or bad or anything like that? Not at all. I am a birch beer fanatic, and on long hot motorcycle trips I have the habit of treating myself to a grape soda while I sit in the shade and rest. 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) 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/
