Re: MD Experience in the MOQ

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Aug 07 2004 - 17:00:43 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil"

    Paul

    I agree, this is the heart of MOQ.

    David M
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 11:40 AM
    Subject: RE: MD Experience in the MOQ

    > Hi Platt
    >
    > I am going to be away for a short while but will not forget to respond
    > to this post when I return because I think it's an important aspect of
    > the MOQ that is perhaps not as clear or obvious as I think it is.
    >
    > Until I respond in full, here is a LILA'S CHILD quote (page 548) which
    > immediately springs to mind:
    >
    > "In a subject-object metaphysics, experience is between a pre-existing
    > object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or
    > object. Experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous...This is pure
    > empiricism, as opposed to scientific empiricism, which, with its
    > pre-existing subjects and objects, is not really so pure."
    >
    > Without understanding this, I don't see how you can understand the MOQ.
    > It is the fundamental difference between the MOQ and all varieties of
    > SOM.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Paul
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    > [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk] On Behalf Of Platt Holden
    > Sent: 07 August 2004 01:39
    > To: moq_discuss@moq.org; owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    > Subject: RE: MD The individual in the MOQ
    >
    > Hi Paul,
    >
    > > Platt said:
    > > It's no mystery why people struggle with the idea that perception
    > > requires
    > > no pre-existing perceiver or perceived. It violates the meaning of
    > > perception.
    > >
    > > Paul:
    > > It only violates the meaning that perception is given within a
    > > subject-object metaphysical framework. I thought this was made clear
    > in ZMM
    > > and LILA.
    >
    > I've looked through LILA and can't find where Pirsig made it clear that
    > "perception" as used in the MOQ means something different than its
    > everyday SOM meaning. Same goes for "experience" and "awareness."
    >
    > > Platt said:
    > > It's also baffling when one realizes that Pirsig's perceptions were
    > the
    > > basis for his metaphysics that denies the prerequisite of human
    > > perceptions.
    > >
    > > Paul:
    > > It doesn't deny perception. It denies a subject perceiving an object
    > as the
    > > starting point of reality.
    >
    > But, it doesn't, really. I can't find a single instance in LILA where
    > Pirsig, in explaining the MOQ, divorces perception (awareness,
    > experience)
    > from a subjective human being, including such subjects as someone
    > sitting
    > on a hot stove, a guy having a heart attack, an infant looking at his
    > mother, a brujo upsetting Zuni society, or a mystic seeking nirvana. In
    >
    > fact, in the LS, Note 59, Pirsig states flatly, "The MOQ, like science,
    > starts with human experience." Once you bring in a human, you bring in a
    >
    > subject, at least in the common definition of the word, "subject."
    >
    > > Platt said:
    > > Further, Pirsig says we can never know ultimate reality (the
    > > conceptually unknown). But that's saying we know something about it.
    > >
    > > Paul:
    > > We can't know it *intellectually* but we can intellectually accept
    > that it
    > > exists nonetheless and work from there. We *can* know it by
    > experience,
    > > given that it *is* experience. Again, I thought this was made clear in
    > ZMM
    > > and LILA.
    >
    > Again, where in these books was it "made clear?" A couple of quotes
    > would
    > help. Perhaps you're thinking of his confession that " . . . since
    > Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a
    > "Metaphysics
    > of Quality" is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical
    > absurdity.
    > (Lila, 5) If you have other passages in mind, please share them. Thanks.
    >
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 : Sat Aug 07 2004 - 17:48:25 BST