Hi Elliot, Marco, Squonk and Joao
>ELLIOT
>> Ok, please give us a description of both Reality and Truth. You must
>admit
>> everything that exsists in only in your head and there is no way of
>proving
>> otherwise.
No, as Marco said, I don't have to admit anything because neither you nor I can really *prove* either way.
>> Admit
>> first that your studing human perception and not objective reality or your
>> making the same mistake as the church or reason and Science (capital S).
Can't comply there either. When I'm studying the stars - either directly with my eyes, semi-directly with my telescope or indirectly on www.nasa.gov - I'm seeing the same stars as everybody else. I see two ways to come to terms with this situation. Either, I concede that there is a world "out there" and there are other people like me seeing the same world as I see, or I say that I can only really know what I see and discard everthing and everybody else.
I'd pick the first any day. The latter seems to show a complete disrespect for other people. Also, I bet you and the rest of the world live every moment of your lives according to the first alternative, except for some who change their opinion when thinking philosophy.
>MARCO
>even illusions are real.
Cool! That statement is exclusive for the MoQ isn't it?
>Reality is Quality. Truth
>is a static intellectual pattern of value. The Truth that says that
>everything is in my head is a static pattern of value. You can't prove it
>too. I'd say it is good, but with many limits. The MOQ surpasses both the
>"all in my head" truth and the "distinct outer reality" truth claiming that
>they are both high level intellectual patterns.
Hmm... statements like these sounds like philosophology. Very rational indeed but not very well suited to calm down two opponents trying to prove what "the world is really like".
>PIRSIG
>"Anders is slipping into the materialist assumption that there is a huge
>world out there that has nothing to do with people. The
>MOQ says that is a high quality assumption, within limits. One of its limits
>is that without humans to make it that assumption cannot be made. ..."
>
>MAGNUS
>Doesn't that sound a lot like Descartes, "I think, therefore I am"?
>It sounds like:
>We can't say anything about what we can't experience first-hand, so why
>bother?
>Boring, if you ask me.
>
>MARCO
>But when we start talking about something we can't experience we are
>actually experiencing it.
Intellectually, yes. But not in any other way. You're using the same 4:th level escape as above and that doesn't really answer the original question.
>The MOQ doesn't hold that everything is in our
>head, just says that the world out there can't be separated from people.
Sounds right at first glance but there's something fishy here as well. I mean, the MoQ is an evolutionary theory right? It doesn't contradict science in that the universe was created by a Big Bang, then galaxies formed with stars and planet systems and so on. In other words, the MoQ concedes that there once existed a reality without people. But then... I don't know, are you saying that the MoQ didn't exist - that Quality didn't run things - before Pirsig came along? I think that puts us right back into hiding in the mind. What's the difference between that and Descarte?
Magnus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:02:11 BST