From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 22:24:17 GMT
Dear Platt,
You wrote 18/11 10:16 -0500:
'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.'
How and from which passages do you conclude that intellectual patterns of
value arose simultaneously with the social level and that the arising of
intellectual patterns of value doesn't imply that the intellectual level
arose?
You may know by now that in my MoQ a level comes into being when a new type
of patterns of value comes into being. You will also know that I don't care
very much whether Pirsig would agree, but only whether he and others would
still recognize my MoQ as MoQ (in other words: whether it is still a part of
the MoQ understood as an intellectual pattern of value). I know that for you
a statement is only true in a MoQ context if it is a correct interpretation
of Pirsig's words, however, so please explain yourself on that basis.
You also wrote:
'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?'
I'd say that Pirsig's definition of consciousness as 'the collection and
manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of
experience' implies that experience is necessary for consciousness, rather
than the other way around. 'Self' is not mentioned.
I wrote 17/11 22:35 +0100
'"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'?'
You replied 18/11 10:16 -0500:
'I use awareness as a synonym for experience, ... My claim that awareness
expands with each level ... is important because Darwinian evolution largely
ignores the development of "interiors" whereas the MoQ is all about that
neglected aspect of phenomena.'
So your 'awareness' adds 'interiorness' to 'value' and adds to the MoQ the
idea that the 'interior space' (of ???) expands with each level?
I understand the concept of 'value' in a MoQ context to ignore the
distinction between 'interior' and 'exterior', and rightly so, because
introducing this distinction immediately re-introduces 'subjects', that can
have an 'interior' AND (when seen as 'objects' by other 'subjects') and an
'exterior'.
If you say 'the MoQ is all about [the interior] aspect of phenomena', you
seem to interpret 'value' or 'Quality' (which is the core concept of the
MoQ) again as 'value in the mind of a subject' or 'Quality as attributed to
an object by a subject'. In other words: you seem to presuppose subjects
(with 'interiors') before there can be value/Quality.
I don't think that 'awareness' is a necessary concept and 'its expansion
with each successive level' a valuable idea for the MoQ. It rather risks
re-introducing SOM in disguise.
You can (again) object:
'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.'
We can distinguish between
1) the problem that 'patterns of value' understood as 'patterned experience'
seems to imply that WE (having that experience) are subjects experiencing
objects and
2) the problem that ascribing 'awareness' or an 'interior aspect' to those
'patterns of value' seems to imply that these 'patterns of value' are
themselves 'subjects' and from another viewpoint (when we recognize that
they also have an 'exterior aspect) 'objects'.
The second problem can be avoided. The first problem can be solved by
explaining (as Pirsig does in 'Lila') that the (patterned) experience comes
first and that 'subjects' and 'objects' are deduced from that experience.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 22:24:45 GMT