Hi Platt,
> ELEPHANT: (previously)
> We can attribute any property we like to patterns of quality. Awareness
> is *not* a property.
>
> (A property would be a property of an *object* - but the reality of
> awareness is, like that of quality, prior to both subjects and objects.
> That is the same as saying that awareness is prior to (the operation of)
> language. Being prior to language it is also prior to atoms, which are
> linguistic entities.)
>
> PLATT:
> Let’s see. “Awareness” is prior to language and not a “linguistic entity.”
> Doesn’t this self-contradiction give you a moment’s pause?
>
> ELEPHANT:
> You may have to be more helpful, and perhaps on a later occasion - I
> don't quite know what you mean. *Perhaps* you have generated a
> contradiction by the insertion of those quotation marks around
> "awareness" - this is my best guess. If that's the case, I would like to
> point out that I didn't mention" awareness", I mentioned awareness.
> Obviously the *word* "awareness" is alinguistic entity. But if I had
> *meant* to talk about the *word* "awareness" in that sentence, rather
> than *that to which it refers*, I would have *said* "awareness" with the
> quotation marks. I didn't. Is that clear?
>
> PLATT:
> No. But I won’t argue the point since we agree that awareness, like
> Quality, is prior to language even if we can’t say so without committing
> a self-contradiction.
ELEPHANT:
It is no self-contradiction to say that what the word 'awareness' refers to
existed before word. It *may* be problematic for more complex reasons
depending on your philosophy of language. For my part I tend to suggest
that where the words refer to synthetic entities (eg atoms) the word and the
object are the very same age and interdependant: there is nothing to the
objects but our judgements 'about' it. But I hardly think that what
'awareness' refers to can be considered a synthetic entity: given that it is
a precondition of all synthetic judgement.
>
> PLATT: (previously)
> Also, you seem to make a distinction between objects and patterns of
> value.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> Do I Platt? This is news to me, and I'm just looking back over that post
> to see the seeming that seems to you: and I can't. Take it from me: by
> "object" I do not mean anything different from patterns of value. That
> might be the explanation for the fact that I didn't *say* I meant anything
> different from patterns of value.
>
> PLATT:
> Good. We agree that objects are patterns of value.
ELEPHANT:
Yes, and my 'slant' on that, if you please, is that patterns of value, being
patterns of SQ, are patterns of *confered* value: complexes of judgements.
You do recognise don't you, that a pattern of DQ is a 'contradiction in
terms'? Since after all DQ being continuous can't be divided into any
threads to be woven and patterned together.
>
> PLATT: (previously)
> In other words, not only can SOM live side by side with the MOQ, it must
> because the language of subjects and objects has to used to describe
> the MOQ.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> I think you will find that it is the Subject-Object *dichotomy* which lives
> side by side with the MOQ, *not* the Subject-Object *METAPHYSICS*.
> Hence RMP's discussing of "subject-object thought", not "subject-
> object metaphysics" in the passage above. Note also the scope
> oporator "all" in the sentence "This may sound as though a purpose of
> the Metaphysics of Quality is to trash all subject-object thought but
> that's not true." I.E. *some* SO thought is being difinitively trashed, the
> bit that we can call a "metaphysics". When do you step over the line
> from "subject-object thought" to "subject-object metaphysics"? You
> already know my answer. It's when you abandon the "as if".
>
> PLATT: I see no difference at all between subject-object thought and
> subject-object metaphysics. Methinks you make a distinction without a
> difference. (I’ve never understood your “as if” caveat.)
ELEPHANT:
I have an incomprehension to exhchange for yours: I have never understood
how you could fail to understand 'as if'. You do watch movies, don't you
Platt?
As to the difference between SOM and the subject-object dichotomy, I would
have thought that Pirsig himself makes this rather clear. The metaphysics
is the thought that the 'first cut' is between subjects and objects (or,
alternatively, that all primary realities are particulars :subjects and
objects). The dichotomy is merely the dividing of the one from the other,
without any metaphysical claims about where this cut comes in the order of
things. RMP is vituperative towards the metaphysics, not the dichotomy.
All this is too obvious.
>
> PLATT: (previously)
> ...we do agree that awareness is like Quality. In fact, I submit that
> Quality and awareness are synonymous.... [snip]
>
> ELEPHANT:
> LIKE quality, yes. Synonymous, no. Your dictionary rewiting project is
> trully awesome (your ambition is to be admired: such a suggestion
> comes from no coward!). The futhest I will go is to say that perhaps the
> separation between Quality and Awareness is the the cut *before*
> Pirsig's "first cut" i.e. the cut between DQ and SQ. But unlike the
> DQ/SQ cut, which comes about as a result of the advent of language
> (which requires states of affairs instead of a flux, and numbers out the
> world), it seems to me that the distinction between Quality or the Good,
> and our state of being in relation to it, which is awareness, is
> fundamental. Awareness is a relation to quality. Now it is a fact that my
> relatives cannot be me, for the simple reason that they are my relatives.
> What is in relation to a thing cannot be that thing: this is fairly common
> sense. It could be that one could get "quality" and "awareness" to
> mean the same thing - but if that project succeeded, the expression
> "aware *of*..." would suddely become nonsensical, and since that
> expression is the major component of the grammar of "aware", this
> doesn't seem like much of an improvement.
>
> PLATT:
> You make a fine grammatical point but, with no offense intended,
> you’ve overthought the issue
ELEPHANT:
I could try to be more stupid if you prefer.
PLATT:
>. “Quality of” makes equal sense to “aware
> of” as in “The quality of mercy is not strained.”
ELEPHANT:
Not content with mangling RMP according to my lights, you now make mincemeat
of Shakespeare. I care less for Bill, but frankly I think you sould be more
cautious as to say what you just did. You are claiming that the lady is
trying to tell shylock that it is easy to be *aware* of mercy. That is
complete piffle.
PLATT:
> Quality and awareness
> are usually of or about something, but they can also stand alone
> without content and without relation to anything as Pirsig and any
> mystic worthy of the name will gladly verify. “Pure experience cannot be
> called either physical or psychical: it logically precedes this distinction.”
> (Lila, Chap. 29)
ELEPHANT:
Yes, they both have that one similarity of (sometimes) existing not in
relation to anything. That's rather a long way from showing that there ae
same thing. (Compare: a model T and a VW bettle both have bumpers,
therefore a model T is a Vee Dub. - not high quality reasoning.)
> PLATT:
> My claim that Quality and awareness are synonymous is based on the
> following statement by the Man:
>
> “The Metaphysics of Quality says pure experience is value.” (Lila, Chap.
> 29) For additional evidence, refer to Pirsig’s description of the
> “conceptually unknown” in SODV.
>
ELEPHANT:
Well if this is your entire basis for your reading, let's pay proper
attention to what RMP says. Note the "pure". 'Awareness', I suggest,
allows for more than 'pure experience' (which is a buddhist concept
describing the state acheived in meditation where subject-object thought is
entirely absent). In this context I think 'pure experience' might be being
used by RMP to denote experience *considered apart from* subject-object
thought. That is to say: Dynamic Quality.
Now, I can be *aware* that Tony Blair is prime-minister. This is *not* a
matter of pure experience. It is SQ, not DQ. This shows that awareness and
pure experience are not one and the same.
RMP is quite right to omit one 'of', and not say: "pure experience is *of*
value": because of course such a referential realationship could only exist
towards an *object*: a pattern of SQ. But RMP is not saying that all
awareness is pure experience (please admit that!), and consequently he is
not arguing for the removal of the 'of' in "aware *of* value". Here the
value and the awareness are distinct, because that 'of' describes the SQ
situation: the value in question is Static Quality. The situation is quite
different with DQ - and you are mixing the two up.
PLATT:
> While this discussion is fun, Elephant, I get the feeling that we’re
> beating a dead horse.
ELEPHANT:
You are the one beating it. I am trying to put it out of it's misery (I do
occasionally have these humane and public-spirited motivations).
PLATT:
> (No pun intended about our site Administrator,
> Horse, who has maintained a curious but no doubt wise silence for
> weeks.) I’ll look forward to your final word on the “atoms are aware”
> thread and hope Roger will also see fit to offer some concluding
> remarks.
ELEPHANT:
Yes indeed. BTW - what's going on with your email: why all the % and funny
punctuation marks? (I've been struck by this for months).
All the best,
Elephant
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 - 16:01:14 BST