i may be off the mark here but....
does this disagreement hinge on the linguistic turn?
if so then maybe the problem is one of mythos v logos.
the reality creating aspect of language - eg in the beginning was the word -
this is the mythos. in tarot 'the magician', or more accurately 'le bateleur',
is the first card. he represents not god but the demiurge: the creative will of
the godhead. he stands one arm up to heaven one arm down to earth. he is the
conduit through which 'the word' or thought is made manifest as
emotional/physical reality.
this process operates on all scales - the individual up to the tribe up to the
nation up the species up to earth itself (and beyond). at the higher levels we
are dealing with patterns that are very old and unconscious to the individual
level. but when we get to the individual level we can see, in all of our lives,
how our thoughts - conscious or habitual - affect our perception of reality,
which is for all intents and purposes reality itself.
the mythos is the underlying, generally unconscious fecundating source. our
collective cultural, species, biological and even inorganic memories that
inform what we take to be real. the mythos *is* language creating reality. but
the mythos creates reality based on the truth of mythopoetry. perhaps
'language' needs qualification here: archetypal language, symbolic
language....the synthetic function of language. we are talking of value truths
here not factual ones....the dreamtime of the aboriginal australians
dreamtime. the aboriginal australians also believe that there was a time when
the power of dream and waking reality were not separate...a time when people
could directly interact with and direct the creative force...
anyways....the logos is born of the mythos. in a way it still is the mythos.
the logos is language used to break down reality - it is the analytic aspect of
language. it 'stops' reality and maps it and then its mapping becomes part of
the synthetic aspect - the mythos - if it takes root, if it is good enough.
i guess what i am trying to get to here is some feeling that immediate
experience is prior to *and* in some way created by language - it is both.
generally we can make a division and say that the mythos is the creative aspect
and that the logos is the post-immediate experience analytic aspect. but this
dividing line is perhaps becoming fuzzy.
what i am getting at is maybe the same point i made above re: aboriginal
australians. perhaps the basic reason for the evolution of (jaynesian)
consciousness is to better weld the individual with the cosmic creative will,
ie thought/word - the demiurge. in other words if the higher function of
language is reality-creating then perhaps we are evolving - via the
sophiscation of the intellectual faculty - to being a greater or more direct
part of this process.
i will try a bit more at getting this: the project pirsig and ourselves are
party of is the 'expansion of rationality', to use DMBs words. we are trying to
create a better map of reality - a better logos. is it possible that the
culmination of this project is actually a unification of mythos and logos? if
it is then perhaps it can be more clearly seen what i am getting at about being
more directly part of the reality creating process.
anyway, just thoughts, (hmmmm maybe the word 'just' is unjust - i think so).
__________________________________________________________________________________
Find local businesses and services in your area with Yahoo!7 Local.
Get started: http://local.yahoo.com.au
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/
