From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 05 2004 - 20:53:25 BST
Hi Scott
top post
welcome back
I think I get alienated from SQ
just like any other DQ would sometimes.
I hope you can avoid fighting the giant for a while.
It will take a hard fall one of these days!
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:00 PM
Subject: RE: MD The individual in the MOQ
> Hi all,
>
> I too am back, after a six month hiatus due to struggles with the Giant in
> various ways (I lost, of course). It is good to see that something more
> sensible, namely moq_discuss, keeps on.
>
> But eager to pick up where I seemed to have left off...
>
> Paul said:
>
> > On the other hand (and I have not denied this throughout the dialogue),
> > without society, and biology, and matter, there are no intellectual
> > patterns.
>
> Why do you (and Pirsig) assume this? True, our only experience of
> intellectual patterns is as embodied beings, but some mystics (Franklin
> Merrell-Wolff and Rudolf Steiner, for example) have different experiences,
> of disembodied intellect. There are also probabilistic arguments against
it
> from the Intelligent Design folks, which, though not conclusive, should at
> least allow for some doubt (though I have different disagreements with
> them, namely that they are too theistic). And there is also my own
argument
> (which I won't repeat here) that you can't get intellect out of
> non-intellect patterns, regardless of how complex the latter may be. To
say
> that you can, as the Emergence folks do, is so much arm-waving, a
> non-argument forced by a dogmatic adherence to Darwinisim.
>
> > But, finally, I really think it is important for you to appreciate that
> > the individual is not containing the patterns. A glass contains water,
> > when you pour out the water, the glass remains. If you "pour out" the
> > patterns of an individual human, only Dynamic Quality remains, which
> > doesn't contain anything.
>
> I agree that the container/contained model doesn't work, but I would say
> that the individual should be seen as a localized version of DQ, and not
> just of static patterns, that the DQ that is left after "pouring out" SQ
is
> a part of the individual, though it would be better to say that a (human)
> individual should be seen as a locus of DQ/SQ interaction. To limit the
> individual to SQ denies our ability to observe and reflect on SQ, and to
> create new patterns. Otherwise, one must explain how some SQ can observe
> and reflect on other SQ *as* patterns (that is, as wholes), which I
believe
> to be impossible.
>
> It is a slip back into SOM to begin with the
> > existence of an individual who *has* experiences and therefore *has*
> > patterns. It is also important to see that the patterns which compose an
> > individual are changing and in a relationship with other patterns with
> > boundaries that are also changing and so, as there is nothing fixed
> > containing the patterns, an individual, as with everything, has
> > permanence only by postulation.
>
> But there is "temporary permanence", one might say, that is, duration. If
> you see a light go on, there had to be some continuity from the state
> before the light went on to the state after, or there wouldn't be any
> noticing of a difference. It is a return to (dualist) SOM to account for
> the continuity by saying that there is a self independent of the change in
> light, but it is also a form of SOM (materialist nominalism) to say that
> the continuity is "postulation". There is a mystery here that both SOM and
> the MOQ are incapable of addressing. If you say that that the continuity
is
> supplied by DQ then you are saying that you are DQ, since you noticed the
> change. If you say that it is one static pattern observing another, then
> you are arm-waving.
>
> The irony is that Pirsig had the solution (well, a pointer to it) in ZAMM,
> when he said that Quality creates the subject and object in acts of
> perception, but then lost it in LILA when he redefined subject and object
> in such a way that it is impossible for the MOQ to account for perception.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Thu Aug 05 2004 - 22:56:09 BST