Gary,
Platt has responded better than I can to the "empiricism" issue. I would
only add that I would not accept your definition: "one who only believes
that only things which can be experienced via our senses or augmented
sense are real." since I do not accept (as a metaphysician) that reality
consists of the things experienced, rather that the experiencing is
real. Things become things because they are experienced (Barfield's
"figuration"), and in the same act, an experiencer is momentarily
created. (Note the qualification "as a metaphysician". In daily life I
must -- if I am going to get along in a SOM world -- pretend that things
exist. I reconcile this by adopting the Buddhist doctrine of two truths.)
In a later post you recognize that, in fact, I do not believe in a
"reality existing independent of the observer". Also, I do not believe
in a self-existent observer. I have stated this many times. It should be
borne in mind that I do not restrict the set of (non-self-existent)
observers to human beings.
The purpose of all those questions below was to point out that they
arise because you have stated that there is an internal reality (the
mind) and an external reality (the things). It is the perennial problem
of dualism: how do the two realms interact. This kind of question does
not arise in the MOQ because Pirsig starts with value/experience, not
with minds and matter. So when you ask "where do the levels reside" you
are not asking a MOQ question, but a SOM question.
You mention (in other posts) my "Hindu" filter. I would say I'm more
filtered by Buddhism than Hinduism, but never mind. I'm also filtering
through Western philosophy, in particular postmodernists like Rorty,
but again never mind. What I suggest to you is that you make note of
your SOM filter. In particular, you say (in your post to Platt) "I am
interested in asking the question: How do you come to know the structure
of reality? That question yields a map of reality that focuses on the
process of gaining knowledge. Thus my map builds out from inside a mind.
My map focuses on internal/external, private/public, words/things,
maps/territory." These are all SOM concerns that exist ONLY because of
an initial division into mind and matter. My questions were intended to
demonstrate this to you, but as so often you misunderstood. If you had
read them more carefully you would not have jumped to the ridiculous (in
view of almost everything I've posted here) conclusion that I consider
only what is sensed to be real.
One last point. To translate Maya as "illusion" is a mistake. The things
of experience are illusory. The things of experience are not illusory. I
hope reading Merrell-Wolff helps you to understand how both of the
previous sentences are true, and of course, how both are false.
- Scott
Gary Jaron wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> I am extremely puzzled. I would have assumed that your presence on this
> site meant that you were not a strict empiricist, i.e. one who only
believes
> that only things which can be experienced via our senses or augmented
sense
> are real. This is how I am reading your questions to me. If you are a
> strict empiricist then you should read or re-read Zen and the Art.
Pirsig,
> not the first and not the last, who has shot down that belief. It seems
> obvious that Quality exists even though it can not be directly seen,
tasted,
> touch, etc. Hence:
>
> [Scott:]> I see what you are saying, but my response is the same: to
me this
> way
>
>>of dividing things up has no metaphysical value, for reasons stated
>>
> before:
>
>>a) its primary division of things is into mind and non-mind, and that
>>resuscitates many of the platypi that the MOQ has tried to deliver us
>>
> from.
>
> GARY'S RESPONSE: This sentence seems to only make sense if you are
making
> a
> strict empiricist argument. Much of this e-mail is all about raising the
> strict empiricist concept as an attack on my idea of the 4th level =
mind.
> I can take everything you have asked me and turn around and challenge
your
> idea that the 4th level is not the mind but is rational thinking.
What is
> that? It is and it can only be mental processes! Unless you have some
> radically new concept that I'm not privy too. Thus this whole first
> challenge is meaningless. I didn't say that this division of mind and
> non-mind was the primary division I am only pointing out that Pirsig
already
> made this division. He divided things up into 4 levels, the first
two are
> not mind. The last is pure mind and the 3rd is both. This is not my
> invention I am merely calling a thing that "quacks like a duck, walks
like a
> duck, looks like a duck, by the word: duck."
>
> If I am wrong that the 4th & 3rd levels are not mental then what are
> they???? Static patterns of Quality yes, but so what. The monumentally
> important question is :Where are they experienced? I have answered that:
> they are experienced in an individual's mind. If you don't like that
> answer, then what is your answer??? I haven't a clue.
>
>
> [Scott]> b) it does not emphasize the all important difference
*within* each
>
>>individual, namely his or her intellectual development which, at this
>>stage of our culture, lies in SOT: to consider events as dispassionately
>>as one can, to question social presuppositions, and so forth. To this
>>generally accepted (by SOM-ites) emphasis, the MOQ (and "good"
>>post-modernists) adds the questioning of the presuppositions of SOM, in
>>particular such SOM distinctions as mind/matter.
>>
>
> GARY'S RESPONSE: I don't see how what I have outlined changes
anything. I
> am simply asking and answering where is the 4th level & the 3rd level
> experienced. I don't understand how anything has changed? I have no
clue
> as to 'where' you place the 3rd or 4th level if you don't consider
them all
> or partially mental. Where and how are they experienced? What is the
> process?
>
>
>
>>So: we disagree, and I see no common ground on which we can pursue the
>>argument. After all, we both looked at a mere three sentences of
>>something Pirsig wrote and interpreted it in opposite ways.
>>
>>Some platypi:
>>
>>Gary Jaron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Scott,
>>>I believe that the 4th level is the place where the
>>>individual mind of an individual human exists in
>>>Pirsig's organizational scheme.
>>>
>>
>>So my experiencing my carrying out biological functions is the 4th
>>level. My experiencing weightlessness should I go into freefall is the
>>4th level. My raw experience of the pain from sitting on a hot stove is
>>4th level.
>>
>>You counter this (I believe) by saying that, no, the fact that bodies in
>>freefall are weightless is the inorganic level, while our experience is
>>4th level, but to that I say: how do you know that there is an inorganic
>>level independent of my experiencing it (in other words, by making the
>>internal/external divide fundamental, you have an epistemological
>>problem that the MOQ -- in my interpretation -- doesn't).
>>
>
> GARY'S RESPONSE: Answer your own question, if the 4th level is not
the mind
> then what is going on? Ahhh..., perhaps you are not a strict
empiricist but
> some sort of Idealist? Are you saying that there is no physical reality?
> Are you saying that there is no "independent external reality'? If
that is
> the case, then now all things are clear. I interpret Pirsig as
believing in
> an independent external reality, a reality that exists independent of
anyone
> experiencing it. Are you saying that this is not the case. That your
> understanding of MOQ is that there is no physical independent reality????
>
>
>
>>
>>>The 3rd level is the repository of collective activity
>>>of groups of individuals. It is what is accepted as
>>>culture for each society. No emotional responses
>>>existed at the 3rd level, only individuals have
>>>emotions. though you can metaphorically say a group
>>>as in a "mob" is acting with one motivation,
>>>rage or anger or lust, etc. This would be only
>>>metaphorical language.
>>>
>>
>>What language isn't metaphorical? How do you distinguish between the
>>literal and metaphorical (a distinction that only came to be known
>>through SOT, by the way -- see Barfield). How do you know that only
>>individuals have emotions? What about the Giant? or is that "just" a
>>metaphor? What do you think of Sheldrake's contention that morphic
>>resonances may be non-individual (or at least non-human) factors in our
>>experience? Must this sort of possibility be rejected because it can't
>>fit into your scheme (it doesn't seem to be either internal of external).
>>
>
> GARY: If something like morphic resonances exist as non-individual
factors
> then they are by definition outside of external to the individual. My
> concept is the experience is mind, the cause of the experience will
> eventually lead to something that is not mental but bio-chemical and/or
> inorganic and which eventually will have be something that is
external to a
> human body. I don't have to explain morphic resonances, that is
Sheldrake's
> problem. I am merely pointing out how something is experienced and thus
> describing that process and how it occurs. Quality is a thing that
exists
> outside and inside of the mind. It is the organizing principle of
> everything. I only am describing the process of that experience of
quality.
>
> You asked "How do you know that only individuals have emotions?" I
can turn
> this around: Explain to me who has emotions? Explain the biology of
> emotions? I can not imagine that you can do so and not conclude that
> emotions are the solitary experiences that a human being has. As
for the
> "Giant", it is Pirsig describing New York City. It is a metaphor. I
am not
> going to even bother with the whole "what is language" question. Calling
> the 4th level mind or something else has no relevance on that question.
> Whether the 4th level is or is not the mind won't change any answer
you, I
> or anyone else can offer about trying to answer "what is language?"
> I will not get trapped into questions that are not relevant to
whether the
> 4th level is or is not the mind.
>
>
>> Only a individual person has a
>>
>>>emotion. There is no group mind. No group thought.
>>>there are accepted cultural ideas, beliefs, laws,
>>>norms, etc. These can be recorded and these records
>>>are part of the external evidence of a culture and
>>>hence a 3rd level.
>>>The ideas of "liberty", etc are 3rd level
>>>social norms. But as a concept or a belief in a human
>>>they are socialized into a individual and thus become
>>>an idea held in a human individual mind which means a
>>>4th level.
>>>
>>
>>How does the norm get from outside to inside? (Again, the mind/matter
>>platypus).
>>
>
> GARY: Again: How do you answer this question if the mind is not the 4th
> level? I can explain this, one of my essay's on the MOQ web sites
does some
> of this, but I need not unless you can explain it with out positing the
> existence of mind & matter.
>
>>
>>>The difference between 3rd and 4th is the difference
>>>between individual mind and collective culture. 4th
>>>level is always internal mental processes. As I think
>>>of what to write on this email, the thinking is 4th
>>>level, the act of "publishing", the typing and
>>>the sent email is a external 3rd level act and thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>4th level only exist as mental internal stuff of a
>>>singular person. 3rd level can exist as internalized
>>>mental stuff within a single person or as external
>>>products of one or more humans.
>>>
>>
>>Doesn't this vitiate your thesis? If the "3rd level can exist as
>>internalized mental stuff" doesn't that make it 4th level(by your
>>scheme). If it is an external product, then what is it, animal,
>>vegetable, or mineral? Or is it morphic resonances? Or a metaphor?
>>
>>
>
> GARY: I had in long detailed tried to explain how the 3rd level was both
> internal 4th level concepts and public events and public objects
which are
> organic and inorganic things. Again this a question that you should
have to
> answer if the 4th level is not the mind, then what is it? Your questions
> seem so false, so arguing for the sake of arguing. But, I will
answer you
> with a obvious example: What is a book? Answer: it is a object which
> exists on all levels. 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. It is made of atoms
hence 1st
> level. It is made of wood pulp turned into paper hence 2nd level stuff.
> [whether this is completely accurate is not really relevant to the real
> issues of 3rd & 4th level descriptions.] The book is printed with
ink [the
> ink is either organic chemicals or inorganic chemicals] that is
formed into
> patterns of symbols. These patterns of symbols have been determined by
> society, hence 3rd level. The symbols are an alphabet, lets call
this the
> English alphabet. The English alphabet system is a 3rd level
product. The
> letters of the alphabet are arranged into words. Those word patterns are
> again 3rd level. The shape of the letters and the way they are
arranged are
> a physical arrangement of the ink [which is either a 1st level
chemical or a
> 2nd level chemical.] The symbols, the words have meaning. This
meaning can
> only be experienced by something reading the book. The process of
reading
> when it is done by a human being starts off as inorganic to organic
> processes [photons hitting the ink and then hitting the eye 1st level
> events, the photons trigger the biology of the body to process that sense
> data this is all 2nd level events.] Eventually there is the
experience of
> understanding the meaning of the symbols, the words. This experience
is a
> 4th level process and event. The understanding of the meaning had been
> taught to the human, that process of teaching how to read English is
a 3rd
> level process. The process of learning is a internal 4th level process
> within the individual human.
>
> All of the above is obvious stuff. If you call the 4th level the mind or
> something else, you would have to give the same answer I just did in
> describing what a book is. I don't understand your asking me these
> questions? Why are you doing it? What is the point? How does
calling the
> 4th level the mind or not the mind change the answer to whether 3rd level
> consists of internal mental and external physical things?
>
>
>>>When a single human has a new idea or new point of
>>>view that first exists at the 4th level. When it is
>>>expressed in print or by speaking it is a public event
>>>and thus has entered the 3rd level social.
>>>
>>
>>Which cannot have either a material or mental existence as far as I can
>>see. Can't you see what a platypus you are creating?
>>
>
> GARY: Again how am I making a "platypus"? I am beginning to believe that
> you do not believe in the existence of non-material independent to a
> observing human being stuff. It seems that you have trouble with the
belief
> that there exists physical objects.
>
>
>
>> The
>>
>>>listeners/readers on their 4th level think about the
>>>new ideas. Then they take actions. Those actions are
>>>3rd level events. whether a society will or will not
>>>change is a 3rd level challenge that goes on first in
>>>the minds of individuals [thus 4th level].
>>>
>>
>>Doesn't it have to "goes on *only* in the minds of individuals", not
>>"goes on *first""? Where does it go on second? (And it appears you
>>reject the Barfield/Jaynes thesis that this is only true in this stage
>>of our culture's development (earlier, ideas -- and hence change -- came
>>from gods).
>>
>
> GARY: No, I am not rejecting Barfield/Jaynes, I am describing the
world of a
> post-breakdown of the Bicameral Mind and a world if "Idolatry" as
Barfield
> calls or present concept of sense data. I would give a different
> description of a Bicameral mind society.
>
>> What those
>>
>>>appointed upholders of the society (teachers,
>>>ministers, elective officials, whatever) decide to do,
>>>the actions they take, once those acts are
>>>communicated it becomes a 3rd level event.
>>>
>>
>>If you tell me "You're under arrest", there is your (4th level)
>>experience of deciding I need arresting and saying the words, and there
>>is my (4th level) experience of hearing the words and deciding whether
>>to resist or go quietly. In both your and my 4th levels there is the
>>knowledge of the legal system. Where does the 3rd level reside?
>>
>>
>>
> GARY: Again I ask you the same question: where does the 3rd level
reside? I
> have explained it with my mind/private/internal and the public/physical
> events & things/external. If you do not accept the existence of the
mind,
> then where and how do you explain any 3rd level event?
>
>
>>>
>>>The difference to be redundant is that 4th level exist
>>>only within the mind of a single person.
>>>
>>>3rd level is the socialized ideas &
>>>linguistic/symbol systems of a culture and thus
>>>existing within a human mind and it is also all inter
>>>activities amongst humans. It is everything we would
>>>call culture.
>>>
>>>My scheme [& I believe Pirsig's scheme] follows
>>>the process of events, always asking where do they
>>>take place. Hence the use of terms such as internal
>>>activities and external activities.
>>>4th level is mind. All the other levels are
>>>theoretically public events, process, things,etc.
>>>Stuff that can be examined by the senses or augmented
>>>senses.
>>>
>>
>>The third level is not examinable by the senses. How can I taste, see,
>>hear, smell, or touch the act of being arrested?
>>
>>
>>
> GARY: Your question is the false strict empiricist question. My
answer is
> go read Pirsig's "Zen and the Art". Strict empiricism is nonsense.
>
>
>
>>>Only the 4th level mind can not be seen by the senses.
>>> You have to inquire to find out what is going on
>>>inside a mind.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, Barfield points out somewhere (in another book) that in fact
>>it is our sense experiences that are private, while what we think is
>>what can be made public (because we can say it). Also, nothing of the
>>3rd level can be perceived by the senses, which is why, I presume,
>>Pirsig considered both the 3rd and 4th levels to comprise "the
>>subjective". How do you reconcile your scheme with that?
>>
>>
>>- Scott
>>
>>
> GARY: I agree "what we think is what can be made public"!!! This act
is one
> of taking an internal thought, a 4th level mental activity and making
that
> thought a 3rd level event by the act of speaking. It is false to say
that
> "nothing of the 3rd level can be perceived by the senses". The
symbols of
> the English alphabet is something that is a 3rd level thing. They can be
> perceived by the senses. Your questions are odd to me, why are you
asking
> such simplistic challenges which in the end are mainly irrelevant to
whether
> you define the 4th level as mind or not. I am coming to the
conclusion that
> you do not believe in the existence of independent physical reality
and you
> I am not sure whether or not you also think that Pirsig also holds
the same
> belief. I do not think this is correct. Pirsig does believe in an
indecent
> physical reality.
>
> I am feeling very puzzled by your questions [Which is a 4th level
event that
> I have made into a 3rd level event by writing this e-mail!]
> Gary
>
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:21 BST