> 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?
>
Avid:
What you try to do is to ask the SOM [Subject Object Metaphysics] question.
It is exactly where we are at [culturally speaking]. The question of "what
comes first?" The perceiver or the perceived? The hen or the egg?
Pirsig by breaking down quality into SPQ [static patterns of quality] and
DQ, started HIS model in quality, AND THE PERCEPTION OF QUALITY [The case of
the Philosopher sitting on a hot stove]. HE STRESSES that the experience
comes first, the objects and subjects follow. This is the way that Pirsig
says MoQ is constructed. There is the experience of quality, objects
subjects including the self image is a matter of interpretation of this
experience. IT SHOULDN"T MAKE SENSE, it is a different Metaphysical method,
making sense is only agreeing with SOM, nothing more.
I guess you are right that the experience and the experienced should be
linked in a way that they don't stand alone, that they don't have meaning
without the other [like cause and effect]. There is no cause without an
outcome and there is no outcome without a cause.
How this should be formulated, is a good question, which I have several
proposals too. I intend to offer it as the next month issue in LS.
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