From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Nov 18 2002 - 15:16:43 GMT
Hi Wim:
WIM
> I agree that the meaning of 'consciousness' is too flexible to make it
>very useful in defining the intellectual level.
PH
Yes. The words "consciousness," "awareness," "experience,"
"intelligence," "intellectual," and "mind" all have flexible meanings which
makes it hard to reach mutual understanding. Thankfully we now have
Pirsig's definition of "intellectual level" and "mind:"
PIRSIG:
"For purposes of MOQ precision, let’s say the intellectual level is the
same as mind. It is the collection and manipulation of symbols, created
in the brain, that stand for patterns of experience."
PH:
From this I conclude that mind and intellect are characteristics solely of
humans. I also conclude from passages in Lila that intellect arose
simultaneously with the social level (intellect as symbols, i.e.language)
although it took many years for intellectual values to become dominant
and become a level all by itself.
From another statement in Lila's Child, Pirsig adds "consciousness" to
"mind" as a synonym for "intellect:"
PIRSIG:
"Since the MOQ state that consciousness (i.e. intellectual patterns) is
the collection and manipulation of symbols. . ." etc.
PH:
So "mind," "consciousness" and "intellect" in the MoQ are three
different words (symbols) that mean the same.
WIM:
> Defining consciousness as 'the collection and manipulation of
>symbols,
> created in the brain, that stand for patterns of experience' is not
> logically equivalent with defining consciousness as 'self-awareness'.
> Combining them implies an -interesting and attractive- explanation of
> 'self-awareness' as resulting from collecting and manipulating symbols.
PH:
Quite right. Notice that another term is included in Pirsig's definition--
"experience." This is where meanings get complicated. In MoQ terms,
Is consciousness necessary for experience? Can experience of self
occur without symbolic representation? Is "awareness" a valid synonym
for experience?
WIM:
> How would you define the consciousness-interpreted-as-awareness
>that
> operates across levels and expands with each succeeding level? 'Value'
> interpreted as 'that without which we don't experience anything' is the
> main phenomenon present across levels according to the MoQ (even if 'the
> "value" that holds a glass of water together and the "value" that holds a
> nation together ... are completely different from each other'). What
> additional meaning does your 'awareness' have compared to this 'value'? Why
> is this statement 'that awareness expands with each succeeding level'
> important for you?
PH:
I use awareness as a synonym for experience, but not consciousness.
As I understand the MoQ, atoms, plants, and animals are aware (have
experience) but are not conscious. Only humans are conscious
(symbolic pattern makers), have a mind and are capable of intellect. My
claim that awareness expands with each level was a trial balloon offered
in my Principles of the MoQ which Pirsig approved. I think it's important
because Darwinian evolution largely ignores the development of
"interiors" whereas the MoQ is all about that neglected aspect of
phenomena. Science only deals with material exteriors or surfaces,
never considering in their wildest dreams that the substances they deal
with might be "static patterns of value" much less be capable of
experience or have "awareness."
WIM:
> For me it adds little but the connotation that 'something is aware of
> something else', in other words it implies a subject-object split. After
> the pains Pirsig took to remove this connotation from the term 'value',
> this seems undesirable to me.
PH:
Yes. But "experience" has the same problem, connoting an "experience
of" something by somebody. The English language is so subject-object
oriented that there's practically no escape from that underlying if
questionable S-O split.
WIM:
>('Value' for Pirsig is not the result of a
> subject valuing an object, but subjects and objects are deductions from
> values, from the pre-intellectual essence of experience. 'Values are more
> empirical ... than subjects or objects.' according to 'Lila' ch. 5)
PH:
Quite right. But again you see the problem. Who is having an "essence
of experience" if not a subject? If it's "empirical" who is doing the
"observing?" Maybe the Dutch language can express the Pirsigian idea
of "understanding without symbolizing" better than English. The word
"intuition" is about as close as English gets. In any event, I appreciate
your questions. Please know my answers and interpretations are
subject to change if better evidence for changing them is forthcoming. I
have a feeling that you can provide such evidence. :-)
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 18 2002 - 15:17:57 GMT