Hello everyone
Rich Pretti wrote:
>Hi Glove et al,
>
>Thanks for the very illuminating responses to my queries. I have little
>worth adding to your very good explanations but for these thoughts:
>
>>Could we then say that mind-matter is equal to value?
>
>Yes, exactly. That is why the quote from ZMM which states that value is
>(metaphysically) distinct from subjects or objects bothered me. I'm having
>enough trouble grappling with the idea of Dynamic Quality as actually being
>metaphysically distinct from static patterns of value.
>
>>What we do not stop to consider is that these horrors only occur >when we
>>become aware of them occurring. This is what Pirsig's Indian >teacher
>>seemed to be attempting to get across to him.
>
>Um, Yes - in the sense that he didn't know about the bomb until he saw
>(experienced) the media, and therefore without experience of something, it
>cannot be valued (judged), and hence doesn't exist.
>
>But, is there not an experience any and every time two values meet and
>relate, or are birthed in transaction through the Dynamic Quality Event, or
>the "subject becomes aware of the object" - P's words?
>
>So each event in this light is most certainly experienced, which is the
>definition of existence, which is Quality. However, the number of
>experiences connected to each event varies, as does the level of
>consciousness, attention and will involved in each case.
>
>What do you think?
Glove:
What it comes down to is, who is experiencing that which is experienced?
What is it that values the experience? This question runs to the core of our
beings. Consider that when experience ceases, so does perception. Since all
we know of our reality is perceived, when perception ends, so does reality.
The argument that reality still goes on after perception ends is meaningless
to each of us as individuals. There is no way for us as individuals to know
if this is so except by inference. This is the lesson Pirsig's Indian
teacher seems to be teaching. This is also the lesson of Niels Bohr's
complementarity. That which is not observed has no value. Whether I die in a
nuclear holocaust or peacefully in my sleep makes no difference whatsoever.
The end of my perception means the end of reality. And it is the same for
each of us as individuals. It is meaningless to speak of two values meeting
without perception of said meeting.
A while ago Horse brought up a scenario of a meteor striking the moon
without being observed. Yet we observe the crater left by the impact and
infer that a meteor did indeed strike the moon at one time in the past, even
though we didn't actually observe the impact. This is how we blend our
perception into an ever flowing moment. We see what is happening now and we
can infer that which happened in the past by events that are occurring now.
Only a few centuries ago, it was considered scientifically impossible for
stones to fall from the sky. Impact craters on the earth have weathered and
are not as visible as those on the airless moon. And to actually observe a
meteor impact is a rare event. Once one was observed and scientifically
accepted however, all of a sudden a great number of impact craters were
recognized on the earth's surface by inference to the observation. We each
infer reality continually going on without our observation of it in the same
way.
Well... you did ask me what I thought... hope it helps.
Best wishes,
glove
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST