Hi Glove, David, Rog, Mary and others,
Digging so deep into the nature of DQ it was bount to be that we would hit on the
ancient realism/idealism dichotomy. Seeing that it hasn't been the point of arguement
much in this discussion group (as far as I know) it shows that the MoQ can coincide
with both views on reality. I believe Pirsig doesn't really enter this metaphysical arena.
Although I think he's a pragmatic realist he could also be a pragmatic idealist.
You didn't answer yet Glove, but from your last post and David's post, I guess my
diagnosis was correct. Now I see more clear where you're coming from in your posts and
although I see it quit different, I understand your view on things better now. I now wonder
how y'all would classify yourselve in this dichotomy.
For instance, Mary wrote:
> SQ isn't made of anything other than a mental abstraction.
Does this mean you have an idealistic view on reality Mary?
Just like David, I too was pretty amazed discovering that we are all discussing a somehow
shared view (or feeling): the MoQ, but can differ in our most fundamental conception of reality.
It's not unthinkable that the realism/idealism (solipsism) dichotomy has been the source
of much confusion in the discussion-group. That's why I think definitions are important, even
if they are not 'real' definitions as in the strict meaning of the word. Definitions can throw a light
on these fundamental differences much easier and earlier.
There are a few words I would like to have more clear. Being a non-english participant in this
forum I sometimes hesitated to question the use of certain words, because I suspected a slightly
different angle to them unknown to me. Now I have seen that questioning can reveal fundamental
differences in viewpoints I have more faith ;-) and want to shed some light on the words
'Experience' and 'Awareness'.
Roger uses Experience all the time and if it is meant as in 'going through' I agree. For example:
In it's existence a pattern experiences (goes through) change and experiences (goes through)
interactions with other patterns. Am I right here Rog?
The other word is Awareness. I agree with most of David's view until now, but the next piece
needs explanation:
David:
> I think it is the former, solipsistic view that leads Roger and Mary to conclude
> that awareness begins only at the biological level. I think this view of inorganic
> patterns contradicts the very heart of the MOQ. All observable phenomena are patterns of
> value. Even inorganic patterns are "alive" and aware, although they have
> no thoughts or self-consciousness. Those are only found at the intellectual level.
I asked this question to Platt and Roger before in the Principles of the MoQ-posts, but maybe
you can answer David to avoid further confusion. I agree with you that awareness doesn't
presuppose a form of self-consciousness, but doesn't awareness out of it's very definition
presuppose a form of sensory input?
For me a leave on a tree isn't aware of the wind that's making it move in the tree,
except if it is meant with awareness that the leaf experiences (goes through the experience of)
an interaction with the wind.
Are there any others who are confused about the use of certain words?
Dtch grtngs
Walter
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST