[John]
Its not society I'm wondering about; my assertion simplistically is that consciousness itself is fundamentally dependent upon perception of other (nature). My question of the MoQ stems from those statements you quoted of Pirsig and reiterated yourself, of language/thought deriving wholly from one's culture or society. I see a contradiction that needs reconciliation here. Ron: Here is the idea, self and other do not originate in experience, self and other originate in the description of experience. This is Pirisigs main thrust. ________________________________ From: John Carl <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:43:55 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Arlo's Rant and 3rd levels On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:07 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: [John] > 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. > > [Arlo] > First, I got to say... "rant"? Man, you guys are a brutal crowd. [John] I'm sorry about that choice of word, Arlo. It does cast a pejorative slant that I did not feel. I truly appreciate your thoughts and insight. Sometimes I just spew words without careful consideration. Your post helped clarify some questions for me. [Arlo] You'll have to be more specific here, as I am not entirely sure I understand > what you mean. We may be talking about two different things. > > What I was talking about with WillBlake is the anthropological and > developmental point in evolution where the infant social level first > appeared > out of the biological level, and how prior to this "thinking" (as it refers > to > the manipulation of symboliocally encoded experience) was non-existent and > impossible. > [John] Aha. We are talking about two different things then. I'm not that curious about history or theories of ancient cause or the big bang or any of the many stories modern man makes for himself. I'm curious about the here and now of consciousness and the aptness of philosophical tools to analyze culture, language and self. Always a tricky proposition when we are using the self-same tools of culture, language and self to do the analyzing. [Arlo] > ... we are so accustomed to > language and semiosis of some sort we don't even notice it, it is an > ubiquitous > sea in which we swim. > > [John] Yes, exactly my point. It is when our attention is drawn to this ubiquitous sea that questions arise. And as an aside, I'd always been deterred before by the ability of skeptics to point to this problem and announce "Stalemate!" Whenever such depths are approached. "You can't ever know or agree on anything", proclaims the anti-philosopher, the anti-thinker. But lately I have found new hope in my studies that Reality IS graspable and proclaimable. Yay! [Arlo] Thus the "grounding", as I am was referring to, of the social in the > biological > points to the specific neural biological developments that underscore our > evolutionary ability to collectively construct a symbolic representation of > experience. > [John] Ok then, by grounding in biological you are referring to the mechanism (I'm using the term analogously) of the biological brain and how that mechanism supports a higher level of social and intellectual quality? And I further ask, do "specific neural biological developments" merely underscore, or do they cause and create this symbolic representation that we call consciousness? Because if you believe this, then I think I have a philosophical problem. But I'm sure we are not going to batter the poor old platypus of the Mind/Body split to death again? Help me Arlo. [Arlo] > I think, if I am reading you correct, you are looking at the effects of a > society that denies or ignores biological quality in experience. Before I > answer further, I want to see if this is right, or if I've misunderstood > you. > [John] Its not society I'm wondering about; my assertion simplistically is that consciousness itself is fundamentally dependent upon perception of other (nature). My question of the MoQ stems from those statements you quoted of Pirsig and reiterated yourself, of language/thought deriving wholly from one's culture or society. I see a contradiction that needs reconciliation here. Thanks for patience with my haphazard rhetoric and sporadic participation. I will now haphazardly and sporadically address the remnants of this tattered thread and see where we go. 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/
