Hi Glove, Platt, Ken, Mary, Rog, Rich and W513,
This whole discussion makes me think of the discussion I started off with Glove and Dave T.
called "Pragmatism (Realism/Idealism)" (which wasn't so much about pragmatism
in the end.)
Reading the posts it seems clear to me, that this Reality-debate boils down to what you
think deserves the name "Reality", or to say it otherwise, what comprises Reality.
I'll explain by re-using three statements:
1 There IS a Reality (lets call this Reality A), that is independent of the existence of
human consciousness
2 This Reality can be partly known to humans. As Pirsig said "we take a handfull of sand
from the endless landscape of awareness around us and call that hand of sand the world"
(lets call this Reality B).
3 The Reality known to human consciousness is NOT independent of this consciousness,
but 'influenced' by the very structure that accounts for this consciousness.
One camp argues that we can't refer to an independently existing Reality A. We can only
refer to the Reality as known/experienced to us Reality B. To quote Glove
> I did not say that which is not experienced does not exist... I said making
> any statement about what does not exist is problematical.
Thinking like this you have to accept the consequence that 'we' can't even refer to Reality B
because Reality B is in the hard of the experiencer. Every person has it's own Reality B,
so one can only refer to the Reality known to him-/herself.
This explains Platt's tombstone:
> Pirsig says the world is experience. I am that experience--as are you and
> you and you--using the software program called "Me."
> When I lose my capacity to experience--my consciousness--I'll lose the
> world. There's no provision for life after death in the MoQ.
> Thus I say in MoQ terms that it would be correct to write on my
> tombstone, "Mine was the only world." For mine is the only experience of
> primal, unpatterned reality and pure Quality that I know. The rest is conjecture.
The other camp refers to Reality as Reality A, knowing or not that this Reality is
only partly percieved by human-beings and are affraid the MoQ doesn't value the
fields with flowers on the Himalaya, where no man has stept on yet.
To end this post a dive into MOQ-history (which should be done more) a great quote
of Magnus. It shows in which camp I stand:
> "The MoQ says that the moon does not exist independent of observation.
> The observer however doesn't have to be a person, or an instrument
> made by man. It can be any static pattern. The moon is very real to a
> meteor coming too close; it makes the meteor stop quite abruptly . . . If
> observation means "someone observing something else," there is a
> problem. Because then the reality for that someone becomes only the
> things that someone observes. But if observation means "two patterns of
> value engaged in a Quality Event," then the ice falling off the edges of the
> Antarctic glacier a few seconds ago are as real as you reading these words."
Dtchgtngs
Walter
Ps
Glove wrote:
> I agree with you Walter (W513). I just received your second email and you bring up
> many excellent points. I hope to answer it soon!
Glove, did you notice there's a second Walter around. It is model W, serialnumber 513.
(A model known for it's brief posts. ;-))
It's not me Glove and I am still curious about your reaction to my last post about the intellectual
sublevels and moral stages.
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