From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Dec 04 2002 - 16:09:57 GMT
Hi Wim:
> 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.
No offense, but there's no point in explaining myself if you don't care
about what Pirsig says and would rather create your own MoQ. We're
all trying to interpret the MoQ in our own way and come to it with all
sorts of preconceptions that are hard to cast off. My way is not the only
way, for sure. Nor would I attempt to impose my way on anyone.
> 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'd say consciousness, experience, awareness all mean the same. but I
could be wrong.
> 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'?'
"Quality is direct experience . . ." (5) So direct experience is also "the
main phenomenon present across all levels." I make no claim that
awareness has any additional meaning to the words value, experience,
Quality, undifferentiated aesthetic continuum or any other expression
designed to point to that which we know before we know anything else.
> 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.
Our spoken language presupposes the S-O split. Besides specialized
languages like computerese or mathematics, we cannot think or
communicate without it. So there's no question of "re-introducing"
subjects and objects. They are already there. The MoQ utilizes S-O
throughout just as we do in our posts. But, the MoQ objects to S-O as
a metaphysics, the assumption that everything has to be either
subjective or objective. We can agree with that without getting up tight
about using S-O to think with.
As for expansion of awareness, I suspect you and I have more
awareness of Quality than a horseshoe crab which evolved long before
we humans. Evolutionists seems to ignore this aspect of development,
probably because they don't want to admit (for reasons that escape me)
that humans are superior to other animals.
> 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.
We agee to disagree. The idea of expanding awareness over time has a
lot going for it, repeated in the birth and development of every child.
> 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.'
Yes, that's my point.
> 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.
You see problems that I don't see. I accept the S-O split as a high
quality intellectual pattern, and it doesn't bother me that Pirsig in his
books describes what he subjectively thinks as well as what is
objectively happening around him. I can easily switch to the high quality
static-Dynamic split in following his argument and can even think of my
wife as a high quality pattern of values consisting of four levels as well
as an object of my affections. No matter how I slice it, there will always
be a division between the individual, private me and the rest of the world.
And whenever I get to feeling self-important, I'm brought back down to
earth by the realization that to everyone else I'm a passing event
whereas to myself I'm an eternity. With each individual the value
patterns differ, but each valuable in response to DQ.
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 : Wed Dec 04 2002 - 16:11:57 GMT