From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Aug 18 2004 - 20:00:21 BST
Hi
Can someone explain to me how you can have
a preference without being aware of the options
that X is having a preference for?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: MD The individual in the MOQ
> Hi Paul,
>
> > Platt said:
> > 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."
>
> > Paul:
> > As far as I am aware, a SOM sees neither that Quality is synonymous with
> > awareness, nor that this Quality awareness is the source of all subjects
> > and objects. Rather, a SOM sees a subject and/or an object as the source
of
> > awareness. In terms of the texts, does this quote from ZMM answer your
> > question?:
> >
> > "He simply meant that at the cutting edge of time, before an object can
be
> > distinguished, there must be a kind of nonintellectual awareness, which
he
> > called awareness of Quality...Since all intellectually identifiable
things
> > must emerge from this preintellectual reality, Quality is the parent,
the
> > source of all subjects and objects." [ZMM, p.247, Ch 20]
>
> Not really. The question still hanging out there is, "Awareness by whom?"
>
> Paul:
> > Or this from LILA?:
> >
> > "The low value that can be derived from sitting on a hot stove is
> > obviously an experience even though it is not an object and even though
it
> > is not subjective. The low value comes first, then the subjective
thoughts
> > that include such things as stove and heat and pain come second." [LILA
Ch
> > 8]
>
> In this case, the answer to who is experiencing low value is the stove
> sitter.
>
> > Platt said:
> > I can't find a single instance in LILA where Pirsig, in explaining the
MOQ,
> > divorces perception (awareness, experience) from a subjective human
being.
> >
> > Paul:
> > Does the LILA quote above address this? Metaphysically speaking, the
> > subjective human being comes after the value experience.
>
> Maybe metaphysically speaking. But not in everyday, common-usage-of-the-
> language-speaking. Experience is always associated with a person, or at
> least a life form.
>
> > Also, within
> > the MOQ it is assumed that experience occurs at the inorganic level
> > without the presence of subjective human beings, if it didn't, evolution
> > wouldn't have gotten started.
>
> Ah, now we get to the nub. "Atoms experience." Seems Dan Glover, who knows
> the MOQ as well as anybody, disagrees. He wrote recently: "I didn't say an
> atom 'values' nor am I aware of Robert Pirsig saying so. That would
> indicate awareness. I believe 'preference' is the term he uses."
>
> Way back in the early days of MOQ discuss we had a lengthy debate about
> the issue, "Are atoms aware?" As I recall the general agreement was that
> the proposition had to be accepted if the MOQ was to logically hold water.
> This seems to be your position today. But you can see the problem: try to
> convince someone that atoms are sentient in any way whatsoever, even if
> just a wee bit. Most people will think your crazy. I hate to see the MOQ
> flounder on the proposition that atoms possess some sort of inner
> sensibility.
>
> > Platt said:
> > 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."
> >
> > Paul:
> > I think you've taken that quote out of context. The full quote reads:
> >
> > "Within the MOQ, the idea that static patterns of value start with the
> > inorganic level is considered to be a good idea. But the MOQ itself
doesn't
> > start before sentience. The MOQ, like science, starts with human
> > experience. Remember the early talk in ZMM about Newton's Law of
Gravity?
> > Scientific laws without people to write them are a scientific
> > impossibility."
> >
> > He is refuting to the statement that, "The static patterns of value
> > start with the inorganic level. This implies that the MOQ existed before
> > sentience." I don't think this has anything to do with my denial that
> > subjects and objects are the starting point of reality in both SOM and
the
> > MOQ.
>
> It does get confusing when you try to explain this. The starting point of
> reality doesn't require a person, but the reality of the MOQ does require
> a person.
>
> > > 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, ultimate reality can be known by a person through personal
> experience. That "person" keeps hanging around no matter how hard we try
> to ignore him, except presumably when it comes to atoms.
>
> > Platt said:
> > Again, where in these books was it "made clear?" A couple of quotes
> > would help.
> >
> > Paul:
> > That it is known by experience:
>
> Thanks for all the quotes. In the interest of space I won't repeat them,
> though I'm sorely tempted to replay what Pirsig says about socialists. .
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but in every one of the quotes you offered, a
> person or persons is presupposed.
>
> Best,
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 18 2004 - 20:34:12 BST