Hi Roger, David, Avid and Group:
ROGER:
A meteor does not create the s/o, moon/meteor duality. Only the
intellectual humans experience or create this unique form of
experience (or are created by it) BUT, THAT WHICH *WE* DEFINE
AS MOON/METEOR EXPERIENCE DOES EXIST.
PLATT:
Agree. It's well to keep in mind the distinction between the instantly
created "duality" of human experience and supposedly nondual
experiences at lower levels, although biological patterns may share
our dual experience (me/other) to some degree. However, we're
making a transparent assumption here. I really have no experience
of what an atom experiences, or whether it can experience anything
without our participation, as the Copenhagen Interpretation of
quantum physics suggests.
ROGER:
I would say that the eternal flux of DQ creates what the intellectual
level refers to as patterns which can interact with other patterns.
PLATT:
I question describing DQ as "eternal flux" since DQ is conceptually
unknown and thus indescribable except to say it can't be described.
Did Pirsig use “eternal flux” someplace?
ROGER:
The alternative (to "mine is the only world") is that we all see many
sides of a shared world of experience/quality. Which ‘mine’ are you
referring to Platt? The one that wrote this phrase last week, or the
one that wrote it last month? How about the one that was you in high
school?
PLATT:
The only world that primarily exists is the one I'm experiencing this
instant. The past is gone, the future is yet to come. All thoughts,
memories, projections, dreams, histories, predictions, etc. occur
only in the now moment. Although we share many common
experiences, 99.999999999% of what each of us experiences from
moment to moment, especially our emotions and thoughts, is
unknown to another. No “sharing” in that respect I’m afraid. I have
yet to meet a mind reader.
DAVID:
The inorganic level depends on experience for its existence and
evolution, but it DOESN'T DEPEND ON OUR PERCEPTIONS FOR
ITS EXISTENCE. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Our perceptions
depend on their existence.
ROGER:
Undualistic experience indeed does not depend on our existence.
Sorted, leveled, objectified models sure do depend on us though.
Just 'cause we named and built models of gravity does not imply that
reality floated prior to humans. Our naming created objects, but it
did not change preconceptual reality.
PLATT:
There’s something strange about the phrase, "preconceptual
reality." It contradicts itself. The very word "reality" presupposes
“concept." I guess that’s why mystics hate words.
Besides, and more importantly, it seems both David and Roger
object to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics which
Pirsig supports. Somewhere along the line we're going to have to
come to terms with Bohr, Heisenberg and Pirsig on this one.
DAVID:
The MOQ's whole ontological scheme, the four static levels evolving
dynamically, is based on experience. But its based on a broader
and deeper meaning of that word and it goes way beyond what we
think of as experience, namely our human experiences and
observations. In the MOQ even atoms have experiences, in fact it
pretty much describes reality as a verb. Its an infinite series of
quality events, of direct experiences that leaves phenomenal reality
in its wake. It’s an infinite dance of freedom. Experience in this
sense is built into the very fabric and process of reality. The
epistemological issues are certainly tied into this whole scheme, but
that doesn’t mean they are the same issues. The question of our
perceptions, of our human experience, is a distinctly different matter.
ROGER:
Here I agree completely.
PLATT:
Me, too. Without specifying whether an atom's experience is
nondual or not you make the point that its experience is different
than ours. I think that's a safe assumption. More importantly, you've
neatly summed up a key idea that's essential to grasp if one is to
understand the MOQ. Maybe we should make a poster out of it and
send it to all would-be Pirsigians. Thanks, Dave, for making this
essential idea crystal clear and, yes, poetic.
DAVID:
This is how questions of our perceptions are tied in with the overall
scheme of the MOQ. Epistemologically speaking, our perceptions
are indirect. They are heavily mediated through all the layers of
reality that preceded the intellect in historical evolution.
ROGER:
This I totally disagree with. Intellectual experience is not buffered
experience.
PLATT
I agree with Roger. Not only is intellectual experience not buffered,
but we can directly perceive Dynamic Quality, as examples in Lila of
the song, the heart attack, the brujo, the baby, etc. clearly illustrate.
PLATT IN A PREVIOUS POST:
This corresponds to Pirsig's belief that primary reality is an
empirical perception.
AVID:
THIS IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pirsig's belief that primary reality is an
empirical perception OF QUALITY.
PLATT:
Recall the conversation about perception implying a “perception of
what by whom?" To complete your sentence, who do you think
perceives Quality? Humans? Animals? Plants? All entities at all
levels? Do you agree with David's interpretation of the MOQ that
experience (perception of Quality) occurs at all levels, that even
atoms are aware?
PLATT IN A PREVIOUS POST:
In other words, what you see is you-seeing, and what you are is
your perceptions. If you're talking about ultimate reality or primary
reality, there really isn't anything else except you That's why I claim,
"Mine is the only world."
AVID:
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 experience is GLOBAL and not private.
PLATT:
Sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning. Are not my experiences of
my thoughts private? Are not my experiences of what I observe "out
there" also different than anyone else's, even if just by the fact that
my line of sight is necessarily slightly different from another's who is
standing next to me?
Thanks Roger for creating a high quality format for responding to
more than one person at a time. I assumed I could "borrow" it from
you without prior permission. I wish everyone would use it because
it presents each contributor’s views in a straightforward, easy-to-
read fashion and encourages succinct responses.
Platt
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