[MD] Another parallel

[dan glover]

Hello everyone

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:04 AM, John Carl<ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>> John:
>> And that illustrates the full significance of the
>> > image-oriented reality vs. the word-oriented truth.  Words require
>> > interpretation and common understanding whereas images just simply are.
>>
>> Dan:
>> I think this is too simplistic. Images require a cultural scaffolding
>> to build upon just as words.
>
>
>
> Well I disagree with "require".  Even animals will watch tv.
>  Cats will stare at a movie of birds flitting; cats will not be
> fascinated with a book of words about birds.  Sure, some images may
> contain objects with which a person from a certain, specific culture
> would not be familiar, but words DO require a common language and
> interpretation whereas simple images from nature are universally
> recognizable.

Dan:
I think if you were to show a picture of simple snow to a native of
the tropics with no experience in snow, they would be unable to
recognize it. There's an old movie called The Gods Must Be Crazy which
illustrates this nicely.

>
>>
>>
>> John:
>> We
>> > process the two completely differently, according to Jacques Ellul who
>> > provided me with this understanding, and my own reflection of course, in
>> > which I concur with the truth of his assertion.
>>
>> Dan:
>> I think you're contradicting your previous assertion that pictures are
>> worth words, are you not? Still, you sir have me at a distinct
>> disadvantage when it comes to obscure theologians, I do admit.
>
>John:
> Hopefully I cleared the values ambiguity up with my assertion that "worth"
> in this sense is only a kind of efficiency which is of a fundamental
> qualitative difference.

Dan:
I agree there's a value difference. I think maybe the fundamental
difference you seek may be found between the biological and social
levels, if we apply the MOQ to the problem. This article might pertain
to our discussion:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17508-oprah-neuron-hints-at-nature-of-memory.html

Biologically,  parts of the brain seem to respond differently to
images vs. words. However, this response is always socially mediated.
Note this pasage: "If I see my mother, I'm not just recognising my
mother," he says. "Many things are happening. I remember the last time
I saw her; I remember what she looks like; I remember that I love her;
I remember her cooking."

I think the MOQ would say these are social patterns of value. The have
no physical reality. No matter how closely the researchers look, they
will never find the smell of mother's cooking residing in the brain.
The workings of the brain are biological in nature though; the brain
has a physical reality. Researchers can look at the brain and identify
the workings scientifically.  In this way, the MOQ supports multiple
truths.

>John:
> And I wasn't quoting Ellul as an authority, just giving credit to the roots
> of my own intellection on the subject.

Dan:
That's how I learn, so thank you for bringing up folk like Ellul and
Royce and Cassady. Google, google, google...

>
>
>
>> Dan:
>> There is a value difference the same as there is a value difference
>> between words and images, yes. No fundamental difference exists,
>> however. But it appears you've admitted as much already...
>>
>
>John:
> Appearances can be deceiving!  (which is a BIG point to be made in the way
> we rely on images for information)
>
> John]
>
>
>>  When reason itself becomes a trap
>> > (like in dealing with an unreasonable, value-free metaphysic from within
>> the
>> > metaphysic) then we have to find a context outside of reason to do so.
>> >  This, I believe, was Pirsig's great contribution to modern philosophy.
>>  But
>> > once the beast has been tamed, there is no reason not to ride the thing.
>>
>
>
>>
>> Dan:
>> I know nothing of modern philosophy. I'm not a philosopher; I'm a
>> story teller.
>
>John:
> And a darn good one too, imho.  And I overspoke on "modern philosophy".  I
> should have said "From MY experience of modern philosophy, Pirsig's
>  contribution to MY philosophic understanding is the greatest. "
>

Dan:
Thank you for saying so. You're no slouch when it comes to storytelling either.

>John:
> All philosophy IS a  story, although maybe not all stories are
> philosopophical.

Dan:
If you say so... but most philosophy is a pretty long dry slog if you
ask me. That's what attracts me to Robert Pirsig's work. He makes it
interesting.

>
>
>
>Dan:
>> Fundamental reality is beyond any sort of reason and it
>> would be presumptuous of me to believe I know anything at all with
>> certainty.
>
>
>John:
> Well, assertions like this always get me going.  How do you know fundamental
> reality is beyond ANY sort of reason?

Dan:
Experience.

John:
What evidence from experience
> supports this postulate?

Dan:
The "evidence from experience" is static reality.  Experience is
Dynamic. The second we try and support this postulate, we find
ourselves tied in philosophical knots. Tell a story instead.

>John:
> You obviously can't state *that* assertion with certainty, unless you want
> to be accused of presumption.  Which I think I just did ;)

Dan:
Right. The moment we open our mouth to say something or tap away at
the keyboard, we're disrupting the purity of experience. I've heard it
referred to as "controlled folly." We know we cannot assert anything
yet we do it anyway. It's like trying to keep the fat girl out of the
frig.

>
>
>
>Dan:
>> So I tell stories, instead. All my stories contain a seed
>> of truth yet that truth is elusive even to me. It shifts and shimmers
>> even as I look upon it in the full light of day. I console myself that
>> I am not alone in the depths of despair, yet I am...
>>
>
>Dan:
> Images isolate.  Words bond.

Dan:
Oh I don't know about that. I keep pictures of my children and
grandchildren next to the bed where I sleep and when I wake they are
the bond that keeps me going even when I can see no other reason.

>
>
> Affectionately,

Back at'cha,

Dan