Hm. Yep - know that argument, Platt. Only it seems to me (this is what I
was saying some time ago) that the points you raise again indicate only that
conscious atoms are essential to a certain evolutionary levels *application*
of the MOQ - rather than to MOQ itself. This distinction between a
metaphysics and an application of a metaphysics, it seems to me, you haven't
grasped, or at any rate don't go along with. The way I look at it, the
conscious atoms absurdity (you are dead right Roger, it makes not one
particle of sense) is the result of a mistake in the application of MOQ, not
a mistake (or any thing much) in MOQ itself.
Maybe you want to say that I'm accusing RMP of this mistake - it makes no
odds.
The mistake is: in forgetting that atoms etc are high quality
*abstractions*: numericisations of the continuous, infinite, and
innumerable.... Dynamic Quality.
Now *if* atoms were not just our abstractions, then the fact that they
appear to respond to quality would be remarkable, and would require us to
attribute some measure of universal mind, or individual consciousness to
them, just as you say.
But since they aren't anything more than abstractions, it is entirely
unsurprising that they behave the way absractions and hypotheses do in
general: ie they pursue (or change in pursuit of) quality. This isn't
because the abstractions have minds of their own of course, it's because
they are our abstractions, in our minds.
We are the ones pursuing quality in these cases.
Like there are quality situations where it suits us to think about waves,
and ones where it suits us to think about particles.
Well, that's what I think.
And as you probably have me figured as a less than orthodox pirsigian, with
my shrugging off the levels as not the main meal and so on, you probably
won't pay these thoughts too much attention.
Puzzled Elephant
> From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@cbvnol.net>
> Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 12:34:37 -0500
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Ubiquitous Quality, Universal Mind
>
> Hi Elephant:
>
> You asked: Why is it essential to the MOQ that atoms be aware?
>
> If values are reality as Pirsig claims, and if evolution was value-driven
> as he also claims, then awareness of value must have appeared
> concurrent or immediately after the Big Bang. Otherwise, nothing
> further would have occurred.
>
> If you wish, you may say atoms “experience,” or atoms “prefer” or
> atoms “value.” (Instead of A causes B, B values precondition A.)
> Regardless of your choice of words, that atoms “respond” to the
> creative force of Dynamic Quality is evident in Chapter 11 of Lila where
> Pirsig describes the beginning of life.
>
> Or to put it another way: a reality that consists solely of values (as
> Pirsig claims) presupposes choice which in turn presupposes
> awareness. Without choice, the concept of values is meaningless.
> There’s no point for Pirsig to describe Dynamic Quality as a “vague
> sense of betterness” if one is powerless to choose the better way.
>
> I’ve a question? Are atoms aware in Plato’s Good? If not, how far down
> the chain of being does awareness go?
>
> Platt
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 - 16:01:10 BST