Hi Andrea,
thanks for the comments, I here address your questions/points in reverse
order... :-) In passing note that the MOQ-Pirsig object/subject dichotomy
reflects object-oriented thinking whereas the MOQ-Pirsig emphasis on quality
and
discernement reflects more relational thinking.
(1) Nazis, Heidegger, heavy-metal ontologies vs 'truth'.
I think these all occupy the same general space mentally. This space covers
'truth', quantitative precision. The emphasis is on precise, clear,
identification; the 'point' or the 'dot', the ONE. The stronger the emphasis
to
identify precisely so the stronger the behaviour to take no prisoners :-)
Once
identified the identification holds 'forever' (eternal). there is thus an
emphasis to SAMENESS, a dislike of contextual change but an attraction to
'newness', new toys, dislike of left-overs [all very robust, forceful,
'male'
:-) and at the same time 'child'-like] The 'newness' emphasis also ties to
the
'one', the latest and so best of something I know of or have.
In the case of the Nazis, they reflect the expansion of this normally
'local'
behaviour into a social expression; from the context of persona typology the
emphasis is on internal unity (something Germany lacked after ww1.) The
'oneness' emphasis is like the Samuri warrior becoming 'one' with their
sword,
they blend weapon and body into one indivisable unit.
There is no 'play' in this, the emphasis is on competition and so being 'top
dog/gun' etc., all play is rough and as close to the 'real thing' as
possible;
there is continual training to keep the skills 'sharp' (which shows that
some of
the skills are not 'natural' in that normal day-to-day living should keep
skills
'sharp'. There is here a subtle emphasis on extremes, unpredictable
EITHER/OR
occurances and so a need to be 'ready' to deal with those extremes e.g. a
'sneak
attack' by an apparently trusted neighbour. The training allows for dealing
with
these extremes very quickly and totally. Note that from a general behaviour
angle there is an acceptance of the 'miraculous' (the saviour turning up at
the
last moment) as well as the 'random'. This acceptance reflects the "mind of
child" thinking you find supported in fundamentalist religious groups)
The strong use of technology (as in the sword which in our times is
transformed
into Star Wars technology) is reflected in our current times where the
emphasis
on precision is dominated by those countries that have 'heavy-mental'
ontologies
(sense of Empire, the American way, the French way etc etc is the ONLY way
and
so the ONE way, the TRUE way and so on. This gets into fundamentalism, both
religious and secular, nationalism etc etc)
The emphasis on internal unity, so lacking in post ww1 Germany, was
grasped-upon
and milked by Hitler. His rhetoric, and the rhetoric of the party, was
always in
this realm and the perceived humilitation of Germany at the end of ww1
naturally
led to a 'space' to be filled to re-unite.
At the end of ww2 the potential for this 'space' to appear and so for the
process to occur again was nipped in the bud with the Marshall Plan (note
that
the Soviets did not do this in East Germany where there is still strong 'one
reich' thinking now that the Soviets are gone; the Soviets made no attempt
to
'modify' the thought processes, they just repressed the locals; similar
problem
in the Balkans where once the Soviets withdraw nationalist feelings
re-emerged)
Note how post Vietnam war the Khemer Rouge emerged in a war-trodden Cambodia
with the 'year 0' emphasis, to clear the decks of difference, to 'start
again'
etc etc all very 'one' oriented. Same situation has been bubbling in Russia
where there is the growing fear that the destablisation of 'internal unity'
opens up a context that can nurture extreme nationalism.
After ww2 The Allies perspective was to sow seeds in German and Japanese
cultures as these cultures recovered; to establish entanglements,
dependencies
as a 'way of life', external unity, and so tie-down any nationalist
expressions
that may get out of hand; to mellow the 'ONENESS' drive. The mellowing just
changed the focus to economics and trade rather than weapons; the letting of
blood became a metaphor :-)
This change in focus moved the 'need' for 'oneness' away from the 'dot' to
the
space in-between the dots; relational space. This introduces more choices in
achieving a sense of internal unity, there are 'many' ways with the local
context determining the 'best' way at the moment.
Note however an interesting 'change' in that the more precise the weapons
systems the less 'totalist' the wars; our sense of precision is projected
into
the weapon systems. (the Russians treatment of Grosny in Chechnia reflects
old
school totalism but then they lacked high precision weapons :-))
Finance markets can be just as 'totalist' as the battlefield. "take no
prisoners" still exists as a motto for a way of life but it has been
tempered
through socialisation, mixing cultures rather than trying to purify one's
own.
You will get 'local' outbreaks of fascist-like thinking, it stems from our
neurology in ALL of us (Japanese are just as 'racist' as the US can be or
any
other 'precision' biased group). Understanding the source allows this highly
creative force to be managed and so guided since it is so focused it does
not
consider consequences of its actions since it has total faith in itself --
delusional faith at times where, for example, the manner in which the more
'totalist' cultures utilise planet resources as if there is an unending
supply.
Even if there is recognition of the limitations there is then the 'faith' in
the
technology to 'solve the problem' and so dont worry about it.
BTW in the context of discussing Plato on this list, he too reflected this
sort
of thinking which includes BTW the acceptence of slavery; maximise profit,
minimise cost.
(2) Flocking behaviours.
In Artifical Life programs, algorithms have been developed that show this
sort
of behaviour at work (and so allow for novel computer graphics in movies!)
The emphasis is on each individual doing their own thing, responding only to
their immediate environment. This process means that there will be
constructive
and destructive interferences developing across the whole system which will
lead
to the expressions of behaviours being not directly detectable in the
individual; thus the GROUP behaviour cannot be pinpointed PRECISELY in
individuals; all you can point to (!) is a perculation process, general
patterns, a wave front that develops out of the simple act of each
individual
making local distinctions.
In this sort of behaviour the individuals can perceive invarient patterns in
the
group that have no direct source and are so deemed 'universal' truths; the
emphasis is 'that does not come from me nore from my neighbours'. These
'truths'
can reflect cultural or even species related behaviours stemming from local
distinction making that reflects a socialisation emphasis inherent in the
species. This emphasis can be 'varied' given local contextual influences
(e.g.
genetic drift concepts)
In this sense a group can develop a general 'persona' out of the local
distinction making of the individuals in that group. This in turn can be
generalised to apply to all members of that group (e.g. Italians, Germans,
Australians, Romulans, IT engineers etc etc :-)) When we zoom-in to the
individuals we cannot see precisely the group persona, we can perhaps see
particular elements but these will vary from individual to individual
(language
seems to influence the group formats and within the group can develop strong
variations in the use of the group's language).
With flocking behaviour comes cultural truths where these truths cannot be
precisely defined outside of the culture IOW they are only assertable as if
'absolute' from INSIDE the culture and even then only from a cultural
context,
going down to the perspective of the individual does not help; again we see
an
emphasis on the local.
Thus we can have personal truths, cultural truths, universal truths but they
can
only be asserted if the perspective is exclusively personal or cultural or
universal and as such LOCAL. To assert any 'truth' you need sharp
distinction
making; precision and the application of the sameness/difference dichotomy.
It is difficult to assert sameness in the realm of the non-local. At best
you
can identify a qualitative truth based on pattern matching but this moves
you
more into the space in-between the dots; a dynamic realm where things (!)
are
hard to pin down and so truths are IMPLICIT. In fact we use this mode a lot
in
Science where we try to identify something by what it is NOT; this is
harmonics
analysis and there are LOTS of harmonics and LOTS of possible
configurations!
The entanglement of the local/non-local in the form of our brain hemispheres
etc
combined with the oscillation process in our brain that helps us to
'collapse'
BOTH/AND states into EITHER/OR states introduces 'fleeting' truths --
something
is there and then it is gone...but it WAS there, absolutely :-)
Overall the assertion of an absolute truth outside of the local is not
possible
using the traditional methods we use to analyse. The moment we move into
non-local analysis so there is a loss of resolution at the explicit, local
level, we have to identify by implication and in heavy-metal ontologies that
is
not satisfactory! :-) Note that the shift from local to non-local is a shift
from precision to approximation and we get concepts such as the Uncertainty
Principle or the Incompleteness theorem. As such these can be applied to
truth
determination especially when we try to step out of the local box.
Imagine the brain as a huge eye. This brain, like the eye, consists of a
highly
precision oriented, high detail, FM-like bandwidth, 'center' (called the
fovea)
surrounded by a low bandwidth (AM-like), rough detail but good pattern
matching
(edge detection etc) part (Called the parafovea). Imagine overlaid on this
is a
giant ear with the same components, one part high detail and the other
rough.
LOCAL distinctions fall within the range of the detail - the fovea for the
eye;
non-local falls into the range of the parafovea. Non-local will thus always
be
'fuzzy', distorted, out of focus but also informative (e.g. use of
peripheral
vision to pick up forms that the fovea misses). Now abstract these
distinctions
to information processing in general where the neural parts of the sensory
cortices are also used in abstract thought. Do you 'get the picture'? :-)
(3) truth and syntax.
There is a definite development path in the human brain from the 'primitive'
structures we seem to have in common with reptiles through the more
developed
structures we seem to have in common with mammals and up to the well
developed
structures we share with primates and those parts which are strictly 'ours'.
In all of this there is a fundamental behaviour tracable to 'before'
reptiles
and that is the identification of territory. ( I say 'before' since even
fish
are territorial and a recent study of the zebra fish showed striking
isomorphisms between the human left/right brain functions and those
equivalent
parts of the zebra fish. Left responds to the KNOWN, right responds to the
UNKNOWN).
In the identification of territory process, all reptiles, mammals, primates
etc
use a particular type of behaviour and that is called waypoint mapping.
Waypoint mapping is where I mark a particular (the pub on the corner) and
proceed in a direction to another location (railway station up X road) and
mark
that and so on. This marking process is still functional at the mental level
where rats use waypoint mapping to get around a maze and trainee London taxi
cab
drivers use it to aquire the 'knowledge'; the map of London.
The emphasis in territorial mapping is the 'mine/not mine' dichotomy
abstracted
to the 'correct/incorrect' or 'true/false' dichotomies. In more primitive
lifeforms (reptiles etc) the emphasis seems more on 'mine' absolutely :-)
The linkage process we see here is reflected in the hippocampus and the way
it
'links' frames of data, the flow of 'mines' that when tied with 'me' help to
identify 'me'.
The development path from the Reptilian brain to the neocortex shows a
bifurcation early on and this bifurcation shows a 'point' bias, or 'me' bias
on
one side and a 'not me', or 'others' bias on the other side.
The 'point' bias is more associated with the marked positions, the
waypoints, in
the territory identification, and the final expression of this 'point' bias
is
in, for most, the left hemisphere of the neocortex. That part of our brain
most
associated with object thinking and precise linguistic expression.
The link to syntax is in the form of feeling, a feeling of 'correct' vs
'incorrect' and the source of that feeling is in the left hemisphere of most
with that side's emphasis on internal unity; internal intergration.
The distinctions of 'correct', 'mine', 'true', 'truth' etc all share the
same
general space, the space emphasising 'oneness', the space emphasising
internal
unity and the expression of that unity.
As far as 'truths' to sentences go, no problem in that since it is all
LOCAL. As
far as 'truths' to sentences that semantically go beyond the bounds of the
local, that is a problem in that you move from what IS to what COULD BE and
so
there are no 'truths' there, only potentials. :-) Truths, regardless of
'class'
- personal, cultural, universal are only absolutes locally.
To adopt some concept as an 'absolute truth' is up to you. If it works for
you,
if it helps you to develop without wandering off into ga-ga land then that
is
fine but to prove your truth 'outright' I dont think is not possible using
our
preferred methods of analysis.
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
List Owner: http://www.egroups.com/group/semiosis
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
