[MD] The Word is Not the Thing

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 16 Sep 2009 at 22:01, skutvik at online.no wrote:

> Platt, Andre   .... Anthony again.
>   
> For Platt:  You shouldn't be a relative of William Holden? ;-)  I recently 
> purchased some golden age films digitalized, among those "Picnic" 
> with the said character plus Kim Novak.  Also "The Wild Bunch" with 
> Holden, Borgnine, Ryan, and some other, Holden more haggard but 
> still going strong.    

[Platt]
William Holden was a fine actor. But, no relation. 

> To continue with your message of 14 Sep. (after recovering from the 
> shock of delight seeing (once again) Pirsig inadvertently or not 
> affirming the SOL. 
> 
> Platt continued:
> > Or, as my old college textbook on semantics says, "The word is not the
> > thing."  A map is not the territory, a menu is not the food, a
> > pointing finger is not the moon.
> 
> Your college textbooks surely were SOM -steeped.

[Platt]
Surely were, as are all college textbooks. Can anyone name a book that 
is MOQ-steeped other than those written by Pirsig? The New Testament 
perhaps?

> > Obvious? Of course. But I easily forget. I forget the independence of
> > symbols from the experiences symbolized. I fail to remember that the
> > differences between actual and symbolic experience are great. I am not
> > at risk of being killed by watching a movie like "The Longest Day;" 
> > don't feel the cold while reading about the Antarctic. 
> 
> Does it mean that you tend to forget the symbol/what's symbolized 
> distinction as if normally unaware of it? I would say that we are told by 
> intellect to believe"that the twain shall never meet" because it is a S/O 
> as good as any.     

[Platt]
I tend to forget that time and space are symbolic rather than "real." Also 
I tend to forget that what looks static to me at another level of reality is 
bunch of  whirling atoms. We define everyday reality as we need it to be 
to survive.

But, as you say, we are told that thoughts of good and bad are not as 
real as rocks and the twain shall never meet. Comes the Pirsigian 
revolution where reality is nothing but a spectrum of good and bad.

The prevailing view is, as Hamlet said, "There is nothing either good or 
bad but thinking makes it so."  The Pirsig version is, "We know what's 
good or bad before we think about it."  So does my cat, UTOE and every 
other creature, great and small, each living by the fundamental premise, 
"Survival good; death bad." (Why that's so is a question the evolutionists 
can't answer.)  

> Platt again: 
> > Here we battle over interpreting the map. At the same time as we write
> > to express our views, we  engage Dynamic quality.   I'm sure others
> > have reached this conclusion before and may have presented it here. For
> > me sometimes  the dawning comes late. 
 
> IMO the map/terrain - along with words/reality, symbols/experience, 
> abstract/concrete ... etc. etc. - are all S/Os and as such NOT 
> fundamental. Maps can change terrain, words can alter reality,  
> symbols can kill  ... those who believe in it and that's the point. Intellect 
> has liberated existence from the social level's superstition. Yet if there 
> was no S/O before intellect it means there is none in the MOQ 
> generally. I bet you ask for examples of maps changing terrain? The 
> Panama Canal builders had maps over what it was to look like, and by 
> intermediaries these changed this terrain.

[Platt]
Maps (plans) can change future experience, no doubt, just as thoughts 
can kill. (Example from WWII: "Loose lips sink ships.") As we have 
learned from massive government programs, good intentions can have 
unintended bad consequences. (Government medical care anyone?) All 
S/O to be sure. And all examples of S/O's limitations. The lesson from 
the MOQ: future experience is unpredictable, so don't be so arrogant as 
to think you know for sure what will be best for you or anyone else. Or, 
In the words of Robert Burns:

The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft a-glay,
An' lea'e as nought but grief an' pain
For promised joy. .       

In other words, the "Cleveland Harbor Effect."

Regards,
Platt