MARCO wrote:
> I'm not able to think in English, so when I write "aware", I think
> "consapevole", or "conscio"; that is, retranslated to English:
> "conscious". (Andrea, correct me if I'm wrong)
>
> Actually both the Italian terms contain a reference to an "inner"
> "knowledge" : con-scious is "with" "science". So, what does it mean to
> be aware? IMOE (In My Own English) it's "to well know how to do",
> without the need of an external guidance.
ELEPHANT:
That's interesting, as etymology goes, because it raises two questions as
parrallel to the 'is an atom aware?' question.
(1) Is an atom a scientist?
On top of that, you discussion unintentionally suggests to me that we ought
perhaps to regard "consciousness" and "conscience" as closely related terms,
in their latin roots at least. So...
(2) Does an atom have a conscience?
I'll gladly bet you 5 Ecu that you can't trully answer either question with
a 'yes' without rewriting the dictionary. Probably you would find that it
wouldn't just be one word you'd have to mess with, but a whole bunch. (An
undisclosed bonus prize will be awarded to the first MOQer of the Platt
persuasion to successfully alter all relevant entries in any mass published
english language dictionary or thesaurus, such that are to be found in my
local Waterstone's Booksellers. This does not affect your statutory rights.
Defacement of existing definitions will not count, nor will drawing pictures
in the margin.)
MARCO:
> In my last post I mentioned animism. I think that the so aggressive
> modern attitude against the possibility of an "aware matter" (so well
> interpreted by Roger) comes from the intellectual reaction against the
> ancient animism. Well, let me say I'd like to be aggressive even against
> the "aware intellect". Aware of what? (Oh, Lord, am I sounding like
> Bo?)
ELEPHANT:
Aware of quality.
You say that Roger and I are "agressive" on this one. Speaking personally,
if I do get p****** off from time to time it's generally because people
don't pay me the courtesy of listening to what I actually say, and instead
invent versions of what they would have prefered me to say, so that they can
have a go at that instead.
As I argued strongly in my opposition to Platt's conception of the levels as
set-in-stone articles of the MOQ faith, the organic/inorganic level shift
would be unrecognised by significant proportions of the human race, e.g.
Australian aborigines. I don't beleive that Pirsig's attitude to these kind
of animists would be that they have failed to understand the MOQ truth as
Platt defines it, with the inorganic at one end and the intellectual at the
other, and I've said so quite often enough. What I'm on record as saying is
that from a true MOQ perspective the organic/inorganic "levels" are not
metaphysical givens but merely static divisions that are made within the
intellectual level (which is the only level of static quality objects there
is) whithin the western hemisphere. There's the intellectual level, and
then there's DQ. That's my position and you ought to know it because you've
had at me for this in the past. From that point of view, I can't possibly
have any particular axe to grind against animism and in favour of the
scientific world view, and I've actually said as much (mostly while talking
about aborigines), while also arguing that this total lack of animus against
animism on my part is the most MOQish MOQ view.
In fact what I'm objecting to, in the notion of atoms that are aware, is not
animism, not scientism, and not the MOQ, but a tasteless and messy mix of
all three together in the same pot, shoved in together for no good reason,
and with contradictory results. It's the impossible combination of animism
with the scientific world view that I'm anti, not animism, or science.
The point is worth making again, just to let what I am *actually* saying
sink in through the layers of conceptual defences against what you *imagine*
I am saying.
Science and the MOQ fit perfectly well together. Talk about "as if"
preferences is just fine, given that on the MOQ interpretation the whole of
science is on an "as if" basis anyway - the only reality being DQ.
Scientists themselves tend to take to this "as if" universe like ducks to
water.
Animism and the MOQ fit together just fine too. Talk about Gods and spirits
and dreamtime and what have you is no more or less objectively true than the
law of gravity - if this is the stuff that you value and works for you
that's just the only test there is. Imperialists were dead wrong when they
pretended to themselves that by building railways and sending missionaries
they were improving the "moral condition" of their subject peoples. And in
fact witch-doctors are in a way more honest about the relation between their
"as if" and DQ: the importance of magic and ceremony and all that stuff in
making the "as if" effective in our lives is acknowledged and emphasised -
whereas in science they pretend that there is no magic or ceremony, and no
"as if" either. Retaining the trapings of theater, shamistic religion is
more integrated and coherent in form and content than science can ever be.
So:
Science * MOQ = OK
Animism * MOQ = OK
Whereas...
(Science + Animism) * MOQ according to Platt = nonsense on stilts
Do you correctly undestand my conclusions at least? Good.
The nonsense is what exactly? I'll tell you, though you *have* heard it
before.
-To claim that an "as if" preference makes a quark aware in a non "as if"
sense is nonsense.
-To claim that the phrase "as if" is meaningless and dispensible is
nonsense.
-To claim that the difference between the organic and the inorganic and the
social and the intellectual is one of fundamental levels, and at the same
time claim that inorganic objects are aware, is nonsense.
-To claim that because "atom" is a static concept to describe an experience
of DQ is true, but the idea that it follows from this that the description
itself is conscious is plainly nonsense.
-To act "as if" Ockham's razor justifies the hacking off of any fact or
logical necessity with which you dislike is to act "as if " you were a
character in a wonderland of nonsense.
There are many more examples of weird and lewis carrolish nonsense out there
- it keeps rolling in. I sometimes wonder if the strongest motivation to
all the inventive nonsensualists out there is the likelyhood of annoying me,
and this makes me, thinking of your wekfare, momentary consider withdrawing
from the group, until I, just moments later, remember in time that this
thought will simply be my inflated ego getting itself in sore need of a
sharp pin. You probably *aren't* spouting this nonsense just to annoy me,
and that's the weirdest most nonsensical thing of all. Because, my
annoyance being of little value in the scheme of things, I just can't see
*any* reason why you should want to keep churning out this annoying
nonsense.
You don't - of course you don't. What you want is to pay attention as if in
prayer and, setting aside personal glory for a moment, consider the
attrations that the truth may offer. Yes, this is what we want (god help
us).
Awareness,
Puzzled Elephant
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
