On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:46 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote:
[John] > But I'd like to point out that there are other descriptions besides > intellectual and there is a direct and primordial relationship we have with > nature as animals - before we start analyzing anything. > > [Arlo] I'd say > that "descriptions" are by its very definition symbolically encoded > experience, > and hence always socially-mediated. > > Yes, we have "direct and primordial" experiences, and the moment these are > encoded into an abstract code they are immediately socially-mediated. > [John] That does make sense. I believe we see eye to eye on this. I still have some question - It's embodied in the very metaphor I used to represent agreement - eye to eye. Can you see how this might be a way of experiencing my relationship with you or a horse or a dog - just looking into the other's eye? And this relationship contains a reality and meaning that doesn't require words? Yet by doing so, my action is descriptive of feelings that I can put words to. I reflexively do so. But is there an ... ok here I'm gonna use a big word I'm not really sure of, epistemic necessity to do so? Animals are prime examples for edification because when a dog snarls it's not language; but I know what it means. And a bit more deeply, if I've never looked into any other's eye, would the linguistic symbol representation of "eye to eye" have any meaning whatsoever? How could a thought be a thought with no actual referent? > > > [Arlo] > Our "interactions with the environment" shape who "we" > are, but they are not "us". [John] But I thought I was my interactions with my environment. How else can I experience myself? My poor head is spinning. > [Arlo] > Just because you've walked away from other people does not mean you are no > longer a social being. Your "thought" in those moments continue to be > socially > dialogic, the choices you make and the way you respond etc are all > socially-mediated. > [John] I see what you mean and that is true. I sure didn't create my chainsaw from scratch 'neither. It is hard to break free fromt the overriding fact that man is a social animal. [John] > > > "The hardware in which we reside"? Tsk tsk. Why not, "The hardware AS > which > we reside"? > > > [Arlo] > I'm only using Pirsig's analogy. If you think he was arguing a mind/body > split, > then you'll have to take that up with him. :-) The point is that our > "body", > our "biological boundedness" certainly structures the "thoughts" in our > head, > and we form very particular notions of identity as our "body" is > interpreted by > our culture. > [John] Something Ham said about dichotomous consciousness sort of rang a bell with me... The way our left/right brain predisposes us to think in binary. Subject/Object Yin/Yang. It also led me to an epiphany that I had today about subject/object consciousness not being "bad". I'd been thinking along the lines, SOM = bad, MoQ = good. But the only way Subject/Object thinking is bad is when it's assumed as fundamental. And I had this whole thing written up and was real excited to share it and then read it (and much better) in a paper by dmb. So while it was kind of humbling (what else am I missing that has been figured out already) it was also kinda cool in a confirmatory way. > > [John] > Only as a dog? "Only"? Everybody here raise your hands if you haven't > known > some dogs with a lot more love in 'em than some people. > > [Arlo] > That's a bit of anthropomorphizing. [John] Hey, maybe you're dogropoomorphizing. Maybe they feel the real thing and we just possess abstractions. [Arlo] > I'd be the first to say my dog "loves" me, [John] Nay, you'd be the second. Your dog is the first. You say it with words, he says it with body language. [Arlo] > > but my dog has no concept or understanding of love. He lacks the rich > tapestry > of language, the myths, love stories, poems, songs, art, and all the > cultural > structures (including the very syntax of language) we have that shape and > mold > our understanding of what it means "to love". [John] And we can't smell the rich nuance that a dog knows in his beloved. But dogs are more forgiving so they don't hold it against us. [Arlo] I'd also, and this goes in an interesting direction for me, suggest that > your > dog's "love" has a lot to do with the rudimentary "socializing" that it > experiences with social humans. A feral dog, a stray who has had no human > contact, would likely have quite a different response. > [John] Yes perhaps Arlo, but all that begs the question because a human needs to be socialized in order to experience love also. I mean, duh (to myself) You can't have "other" without some sort of society and you can't have love without that either. Dog or man. [Arlo] > > Even the first "pair" who agreed upon a symbol to represent "that" likely > had > different personal experiences than the others who came to see "that" with > this > symbol. And, over much historical time, whatever "primordial" experience or > emotion that symbol pointed towards is now guided by the social language as > a > child assimiliates a culture. > > [John] Well just the whole way you lay this out, this agreement on symbology by a first pair seems so contrived. It doesn't play in my head at all. I've been thinking about it a bit and I would say this "first pair" is a reality in every one of our lives and it isn't an agreement between equals. It is and always has been the bonding between mother and infant. Isn't that is where our experience of language starts in all of us? Each and every time? And babies have thoughts, even before they have language. Not very sophisticated thoughts perhaps. But thoughts. Look in a baby's eyes, you can see their cute little rudimentary thoughts see wriggling around in there. [Arlo] > Not at all. Or maybe I've just not been thorough in my replies. If you read > the > archives, you'll see I've long argued that the "self" is a symbolic locus, > deriving from the unique experiences of a biological organism operating > within > a social milieu. > [John] NO! Not the archives! Joining this list has upped my reading list beyond believable already. And as a rule of thumb I usually take any definition of the self with a grain of salt cuz I mean really, who is doing the defining. Hmmm? [Arlo] Humans are certainly unique. Don't buy into the propaganda that us > "collectivists" think we are all clones. Language structurates, it does not > dictate. It constrains as it enables, but it does not control or determine. [John] Arlo, it's been a pleasure structurating with you this evening. 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/
