Wed, 16 Sep 1998 Troy Becker wrote:
......snip:
> this is good, but i cringe at the whole carrier idea. carriers are
> results of platypi, and i feel MOQ does away with them. let me say some
> stuff:
> i've been thinking about love lately. love and value seem to be very much
> the same in MOQ. and with your last post, i now see Love, Value, and
> Feeling as near-synonyms. mass loves mass--that's gravity. mass values
> mass. mass feels good about mass. of course, value, feeling, and love
> are very complex in humanland--after all, we are complex thinking things.
> carriers must be avoided, so let me deal with them now, if you will.
> interactions, sensations, emotions, and reason all are "things" that seem
> to me to be intellectual patterns of value. they are all "idea"s, whether
> a rock has the idea to value another rock (gravity), a human nerve has the
> idea to respond to stimuli (sensation), R. Pirsig has the idea of loss
> (sadness) with the death of his son, or a person like me has the idea that
> the future will behave like the past (reason). since your carriers are
> intellectual patterns of value, do you still want to use them as a special
> set of "things"?
Troy, Lorenz, SWZwick@aol.com, and Jonathan & Group.
Troy wrote the above as a response to my "carrier" idea. After that he
and Jonathan has developed the issue further, but let me start all
over again as it looks as it has triggered some other responses.
Lorenz wrote:
> I get a great big YES to the idea of "feeling" as a direct
> experience of Dynamic Quality. As I think about it I know that my
> reaction is based on wrestling with the concept of 'feeling'
> (particularly as distinct from emotion) in the psychology of Carl
> Jung. Jung says that feeling is one of four psychological functions
> along with thinking, intuition and sensation. In this scheme we use
> intuition and senses (sensation) to gather information about the
> world and we evaluate that information using thinking and feeling.
> We use thinking to see if our information passes muster in terms of
> the rules of thought. But the Feeling function is, according to
> Jung, primarily about valuing. That's where the connection would be
> between the two systems of thought. Feeling is the valuing function
> by which in Pirsig's philosophy we perceive Quality. I also think
> that the examples of feeling given follow Jung's concept of the
> feeling function. Sensations, emotions and thoughts may all be
> involved in the process of having a feeling reaction and therefore
> play their part in discovering that value or Quality is involved.
> But they are distinct from the actual perception of Quality - the
> intellectual pleasure is distinct from the bright idea. Well that's
> my test balloon!
and SWZwick@aol.com wrote:
> Eugene Gendlin has a lot to say on this subject. He's got a rather
> dry but comprehensive work called "Experiencing and the Creation of
> Meaning", which is worth leaving through, but his pop-psychology
> book "Focusing" will actually take you farther.
Lorenz.
Except for the "thoughts" part (see my eternal scapegoat "thinking
itself") your test balloon looks similar to mine. And your:
> But they are distinct from the actual perception of Quality - the
> intellectual pleasure is distinct from the bright idea
sounds much the same as Troy's admonition.
Troy.
I congratulate you for zooming in on a very crucial aspect of
the MOQ: the idea of a value here and "carrier" there is foreign to
Pirsig's idea which lifts the subject-object dualism, but let me
explain how I came to launch it.
Some time ago Hugo Alroe introduced the Semiosis metaphysics of
Charles Peirce (1858- 1905) who also professed to have left the SOM.
In my opinion it corresponds closely to the "trinity" stage of ZMM;
and as such an incomplete version of the MOQ. To explain the likeness
visualize a big Y. At the lower leg write (respectively
Peirce/Pirsig): "SIGN/QUALITY", at the upper left:
"INTERPRETER/SUBJECT" and at the upper right: "OBJECT/OBJECT". It
shows that Peirce saw the "Sign" as the primary reality in the way as
P. regarded "Quality". But in LILA the trinity is dropped along with
the romantic-classic split in favour of the well-known Dynamic-Static
one.
This means that there is no objective reality and a subjective
"representation" - or in Jonathan's words ...information and
information carrier, or in mine...value and value carrier; each and
every phenomena belongs to the four levels. Full stop! But it resulted
in many strange efforts to place things such as ... Social with a
pinch of Intellect or even a little Biological value....etc. So I saw
the need for some restraint on this dynamism and turned to the
trinity version of the Quality with a subject "interpreter" for the
value of each level. (NB this left the Inorganic level without any
"subject", but nobody noticed ;-))
However, while writing the
"feeling-as-direct-perception-of-dynamic-quality" dawned on me and I
found it extremely satisfying. Interaction - Sensation - Emotion
-Reason did perhaps not represent (or carry) values, but were the
real thing! I had re-invented the gunpowder :-)! Conclusion: the
carrier idea does not spoil the Quality idea at all if these
qualifications are observed.
An aside: If one compares this with physics you will know that the
four forces of nature has "carrier" particles. Photons
(electromagnetism), Gluons (the strong force), Z & W particles (the
weak force) and the elusive Gravitons (Gravity). I don't know how the
relationship between these particles and its corresponding force is
visualized, but for sure it is no matter particles swishing forth and
back in space. It is just math, but still "observable". Theory and
reality has become interwoven. Language is static and lingers in
classical physics while the math is dynamic. Likewise, MOQ has to use
SO (language) and this is no great "sin" if observed (see SOTAQI).
A little kick to Jonathan who seemingly uses each opportunity to
make the SO split into a PRINCIPLE (SO-M) again:-).
Bo
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:33 BST