> Fred Alan Wolf:
>
> “According to the tenets of the complementarily principle, there is
> no reality until that reality is perceived.”
This is "old news" [Bishop Barclay if my memory doesn't fail me].
But MoQ is new.
Try this: There is no knowledge of reality, till reality is perceived, if
there is or isn't reality before that is not for us to know.
> This corresponds to Pirsig's belief that primary reality is an
> empirical perception.
>
THIS IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pirsig's belief that primary reality is an
empirical perception OF QUALITY.
QUALITY COMES FIRST< AS AN EXPERIENCE.
> Rich has pointed out that “the word ‘experience' has always implied
> the existence of an experiencER and that which is experiencED.”
>
> Likewise, in our dualistic language, the word “perception” implies a
> perceiver and a perceived.
Language is not MoQ, it has it's own world view [metaphysics] this is true
in our dogmatic [current perception, but according to MoQ the experiencer
and the experienced are secondary to the primary experience of quality.
>The implicit question left hanging when
> one uses the word "perception” is “perception by whom of what?”
This one is easy: of Quality
>
> For most people, primary reality is thought to be a perception of an
> object of some kind located “out there” in physical or mental space --
> a structure, theory, photon, map, self, etc.
>
> For Pirsig, primary reality is a perception of Quality, something
> which you, being a pattern of, are already.
>
This is true only for Static Quality, and because Static quality HAS to be a
pattern, I suggest using SPQ[static pattern of quality] to remind us of it.
> For Pirsig, the “whom” is any pattern of value -- human, animal,
> robot or rock. In a letter to Anthony McWatt, Pirsig wrote:
>
> "In the MOQ, the higher up the evolutionary ladder you go (from sub-
> atomic particles to people) the more freedom you have in making
> preferences. This is why generally a person’s experience will be that
> much richer and complex than a dog's while the dog's experience
> will be that much better than a tree's which will be better than a piece
Here I think Pirsig is wrong. BECAUSE THIS IS TRUE ONLY FROM A HUMAN POINT
OF VIEW. The freedom is a matter of experience, and how can you compare the
experience of a tree [living a thousand years] to this of a dog. THIS IS A
REMAINING TRACE of heirarcal structure of Evolution [goes well with Hegelian
thought]. HIERARCHY IS NOT A NECESSARY STRUCTURE to describe evolution.
> For Pirsig, perception occurs at all levels. What these patterns
> perceive expands as you go up the ladder. A human pattern of value
> perceives more patterns of value than a fish pattern of value.
>
> So if I'm getting Pirsig's meaning right, primary reality in the MOQ
> consists of some patterns of value observing other patterns of value.
THIS IS TRUE, but hard to grasp, in order to make the understanding easier
let's try to do it on a cultural level [my name for Pirsig's intellectual
level] experience of something from a historic point of view [from historic
SPQ] will give you other value then observing the same thing from an
artistic or economic SPQ. THEY ALL GIVE DIFFERENT READINGS OF VALUE. The
experience is different every time, so the thing [which is not a standalone
here, but derived from the relevant SPQ, this means that the"object" is
dependant on the point of view [or on the SPQ]. The same applies to the
biological level, but it's harder to grasp. That's why you cannot put them
on the same value ladder [of freedom for instance], as you cannot compare
historic value to artistic value in a certain case.
> But there's really no difference because “patterns of value” are
> intellectual concepts that are derived from and are secondary to the
> perceptions themselves.
>
THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED AS A CONCLUSION OF THE EXPERIENCE. And partly preserved
in SPQ [Static Patterns of Quality]. BUT YOU TOO AS EXPIRIENCER IS A
SECONDARY THING YOU DERIVE FROM THE PRIMARY EXPERIENCE [of quality].
> In other words, what see is you-seeing, and what you are is your
> perceptions. If your talking about ultimate or primary reality, there
> really isn't anything else except you. That's why I claim, “Mine is the
> only world.”
AND HERE YOU GO WRONG, because the experience is primal, you are secondary,
so if WE SHARE AN EXPERIENCE, it means that from a primal experience we
derive me and you [separately], therefore the experienced is GLOBAL, and not
private. THE PRIMAL EXPERIENCE IS QUALITY, therefore the PRIMAL EXPERIENCED
IS DQ.
> But if you're talking about secondary, “scientific” reality, then the
> subject/object, mind/matter, me/others outlook works reasonably well
SCIENCE IS NOT A SECONDARY REALITY, it is a structure of SPQ that gives us
the best method to look at the world so far [I'm speaking of value, of
quality, of living SPQ], subject, matter, etc function within those SPQ,
science translates experienced quality into quantitative relations and
theories.
>[Science] doesn't
> explain values. It doesn't explain why life should be opposed to
> physical forces. It doesn't solve all those platypi that Pirsig brought
> up in Lila.
As any theory it is placed in a given metaphysics, science has not to
explain its point of view, metaphysics has to. THE ANSWER CAN START ONCE
YOU POSE THE QUESTION IN A FIELD OF MEANING [SPQ]. By the way, Pirsig
answered this question. DQ [as dynamic] is opposed to all SPQ including
rules of a certain layer,hence within a certain layer there will be an
experience of unsatisfaction, of there must be more quality out there,
outside this layer, the idea of quality outside a set of rules is called
freedom.
In my opinion going step by step, building the SPQ in relation to quality,
could bring better understanding of Pirsig's theory. This has to be done
from within and not in relation to what we know, quantumwise or otherwise.
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
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 - 16:03:09 BST