>ROGER TRIES TO CONNECT GLOVE"S RESPONSE TO STRUAN'S QUESTIONS
>
>Struan Wrote:
>I understand that the idea that Quality is presupposed and not open to
>verification so will not
>argue that one.
I don't understand why that which is a product of Quality
>seems bound to strive
>towards Quality. How (and why) does something strive towards itself? That
>seems to me to be rather
>odd, if not downright impossible.
>If all is Quality, then nothing moved away from Quality and so nothing has
to
>be thrust back towards
>it and so we come back to the initial question of what we mean by good.
Struan wrote:
> For the sake of the argument Roger, I grant you that all is experience,
but
> is it good?
Glove:
If all is experience, then everything that is said, is said by the observer.
Is there any question as to the Goodness of this? Can there even be a
question? If "experience is all" is accepted as a starting point in the MOQ,
which it must be in any theory proposed, then a fundamental nature of
uncertainty must also be granted. Since the question of "is it good?" is
predicated on the certainty of an independently existing reality
(subject-object classical thinking) with value contained in the object, the
elimination of the subject-object split also eliminates the possibility of
determining with certainty any value in the subject and/or the object.
Taking this a step further, the certainty of cause leads to chaos. This is
what the MOQ sidesteps when it states B values precondition A. To ask why
something is good is to disregard how it is that we perceive good. The
Quality Event is a complete and unitary event in that preconditions must be
established prior to the event taking place. By taking the Quality Event as
a series of events, which is the normal way of perceiving reality, we ignore
this primary modality of unity and completeness implicit in the Quality
Event.
Looking to cosmology we endeavor to discover origins of what we interpret as
the universe. If all is experience, then the question becomes not how did
the universe begin, but rather how does experience arise? Theories like the
Big Bang and the Steady State Universe have been, are, and will always be,
only interpretations of the universe through our experience of the universe.
As such, there is an implicit uncertainty contained in all theories. We
experience good by valuing preconditions unique to each of our life
experiences. To ask why is meaningless... we just do.
>
>Roger:
>In my opinion, the only way to resolve your "Good" question is to clarify
our
>terms. Pirsig's Reality is composed of Quality. He also refers to it as
>morality, good, value and pure experience. This latter definition is the
one
>that is most illuminating in this conversation.
>
>As Glove wrote recently:
>>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.
>
>Rog again:
>I would add that Pirsig is careful to clarify that pure experience is not
>secondary to a subject, it precedes and creates the subject. Experience
>defines the subject and the object.
Glove:
Yes, I like this very much Roger. Experience defines subject and object by
valuing certain preconditional conceptual agreements, and these agreements
are of value only in the complete and unitary Quality Event.
>
>Struan, with this clarification, Pirsig's "striving experience" makes more
>sense. You are right that we can hardly keep from experiencing, but our
>experiences tend to be pale static patterns. We rarely embrace the full
>Dynamic Experience that is reality (Or it rarely embraces us?).
Glove:
Considering that it is not direct reality that we experience, but a high
Quality interpretation of reality, we can say that experience as Quality is
only striving to be itself through the interpretation. (?)
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