Hi Ron, Sorry about the tardiness of my replies. We're on a spring break to palm springs and I have to wheedle time on my daughter's laptop.
> John: > And meaning comes down to the art of interpretation. Interpretation can > only occur with desire. If I want to use a chair as a table, then it is > the > desire which defines my experience. > > Ron: > Yet to explain that desire we must agree to the meaning of the terms > "chair" > and "table". Well I was thinking that in order to find agreement, we must have a desire to be understood, we must want understanding in order to take the effort. This desire is the most fundamental, to my thinking. For if we don't care enough to try, we can refuse to understand or explain and no agreement on meaning will ever be found. > If we do not agree to the meaning of the terms how may the desire > be explained? it can't . Which is what the dispute seems to be about. > Poor interpretations are usually indicitive of low quality explanations > It is the quality of explanation that is the topic of the conversation > about > meaning. > If we don't want understanding to be formed, then no agreement on meaning will ever formed. I think this makes caring the most fundamental of all and I think this is perfectly in line with Pirsig's equation of caring and quality. > Sure shit may be interpreted as shinola, your ass as a hole in the ground > ect,, ect.. It's called a psychosis when it becomes extreme. > > Such a psychosis can usually be seen to have an unforseen motivation. A fear of being "captured" by the other which has deep roots in the psyche and rejects the interpretative attempt. When the desire for understanding is undermined thusly, all the logic in the world will not avail. > Humans exist in societies, one human is no human. > Meaning within a social context is a higher form of evolution > it is better than individual meaning. > > Right. In fact, "individual meaning" is a self-contradiction. Meaning can only be shared. In Peircian terms, l believe, understanding is basically triadic in nature. > John: > > I keep going back in my mind to an essay of my daughter's and then one of > mine on the value of a chair. I definitely agree with > Jan Anders, - Flat chair, no good. I mean, who would possibly desire such > a > thing? > > Ron: > A parapalegic perhaps, but thats the point what gives the term meaning is > it's > use, > the reason we desire it. > > Wasn't sure anyone was reading any of this, thanks for the reply to my > post. > > > My pleasure (desire), for sure Ron. And I agree. Desire also governs how closely our subjective conceptions coincide with what we perceive as objective experience. Without that desire, there can be no quality. Yours, John 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/md/archives.html
