Marco to 3WD, Glenn, Platt and all
Many thanks, Dave, for your contribution.
3WD:
> If "Quality is ..direct experience" and "..."a thing that has
> no value (quality) does not exist. The thing has not created
> the value.
> The value has created the thing." So for a "thing" to exist is
> must have "direct experience" which implies that some type
> of "internal" existence is present in all "things."
Firstly I would like to know if what you mean by "thing" is a concept or
(as I think) something that is in some way independent by the concept
(even if it is known only by means of concepts).
Isn't it like to say that every "thing" has a stable patterned internal
existence, and that it is at the same time interacting with the flow
(its direct experience) ?
3WD:
> So if we apply Wilbur to the MoQ's static
> levels we should split the horizonal hierarchy vertically giving each
> pattern an internal and external component or value. This is how
> Wilbur's "Four Corners of the Kosmos" diagram he presents in " A Brief
> History of Everything" (which I overlayed with Pirsig's levels and
sent
> to everyone who ask for it some time back) arranges reality.
>
I liked that diagram, and I like what I'm reading.
> Platt has been trying (futilely in appears) to make this same point to
> Glen in the "MD criticisims of DQ" thread. In the latest we read.
PLATT:
> > You do not have any empirical knowledge that I am
> > "experiential" other than my behavior. Some smart
> > people have deduced that particles, atoms, molecules,
> > amoebas, etc. are experiential based on their
> > behavior, among them Konrad Lorenz who wrote: "If one
> > observes an amoeba in its natural habitat one would not
> > hesitate to attribute to it the power of subjective experience.
> > What the organism learns about its
> > environment can be expressed in the simple phrase,
> > 'It's better here' or 'It's not so good here.'" Bertrand Russell
> > has opined: "So far as quantum theory can say at present,
> > atoms might as well be possessed of free will, limited however
> > to one of several possible choices." Pirsig, citing quantum
> > physics, says "Particles 'prefer' to do what they do."
> > Pay particular attention to the phrases, "pure quality for the
> > cells," and "From the cell's point of view sex is pure DQ."
> > How many biologists do you suppose would say in a speech
> > to their colleagues, "The cell is acting this way because it
> > knows what it likes and from its point of view
> > its doing what it thinks is the most moral thing to do." Not many, I
> > wager. And that's because biologists can't measure a cell's point of
> > view or what it feels like to be a cell any more than they
> > can measure yours or mine or what we're feeling at this moment.
>
3WD:
> The last line bears repeating, "And that's because biologists can't
> measure a cell's point of view or what it feels like to be a cell any
> more than they can measure yours or mine or what we're feeling
> at this moment."
View points!!! That's all I was talking about. Thanks again.
Marco.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:09 BST