From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 19 2004 - 09:47:04 BST
Hi Scott
Scott said:
As I see it, my argument is an out-and-out quarrel with Darwinism, while
the MOQ just ignores this issue, and hence has no basis for a philosophy
of mind.
Paul:
I think there is a basis for a philosophy of mind in the MOQ. First, the
evolution described in the MOQ is an evolution of value patterns, not
substance. Substance is a description that may be applied to the bottom
two levels but the levels are not continuous. This resolves the
metaphysical obstacle of how mental reality may evolve from physical
reality by grounding both in value. In other words, there is no
metaphysical imperative to explain mind in terms of matter.
Second, the MOQ points towards an historic emergence of mind from a
certain sophistication of social patterns e.g. symbolic language. I
think Jaynes (although he points towards biological factors as well) is
an example of how this idea can be a sound basis for a philosophy of
mind.
Scott said:
In my view, one should not only just not assume that spatio-temporal
events are all that is real, but actually show the necessity of the
non-spatio-temporal, which the MOQ does not do, as far as I am aware.
Paul:
It certainly shows the necessity of Dynamic Quality, which is
non-spatio-temporal, but I agree that it doesn't make that a significant
characteristic.
Paul previously said:
> Why do sense perceptions *require* continuity? For some reason, I am
> thinking about the arguments of the ancient Greeks about this, Zeno's
> paradox and such, although I forget the detail.
Scott said:
Because sense perceptions are extended and have parts, but are perceived
as wholes.
Paul:
Or, sense perceptions are whole but are perceived as parts?
Scott said:
One perceives a melody, one doesn't perceive a note, then another note,
and then in a separate act put them together.
Paul:
If they are already whole there is no need for a separate act to put
them together, rather the "separate act" is to take them apart. Another
explanation is that I think the MOQ argues that the perception of
"harmony," in its broadest sense, is the fundamental nature of
perception which constructs our static reality in the first place. We
are, in a way, predisposed to perceive harmony. This is the basis of
unity between Poincare's epistemology and Phaedrus' metaphysics in ZMM.
Scott said:
Or one can focus on a note, but it extends through time also. This
putting together happens subconsciously, if it can be said to "happen"
at all.
Paul:
I think this "putting together subconsciously" corresponds to Pirsig's
pre-intellectual value. If it is, it not only happens, it is what
happens prior to anything else.
Scott said:
There is a strong relation to Zeno's paradoxes, which are basically
pointing out the problem of the one and the many. Zeno's solution is to
drop the many. The materialist's is to drop the one. But as I see it if
you
drop either, you can't have sense perception (where the one is
continuity
and the many is change). The MOQ does not address the problem, even in
Chapter 8, where other platypi are supposedly resolved.
Paul:
Yes, I remembered what it was that brought Zeno to mind. The ancient
Greeks argued about whether "change" was real and "changeless" was
apparent (Heraclitus) or vice-versa (Zeno, Parmenides, Plato?). I think
Pirsig is probably Heraclitean in the sense of Dynamic Quality but
without stating that static quality is merely apparent.
Scott said:
(By the way, not that it is really germaine, but it is often said that
modern mathematics, in particular the mathematics of limits, has
resolved
Zeno's paradoxes. First, it only applies to some (like Achilles and the
Tortoise), but actually the resolution depends on mathematical
constructs
(the infnitesimal) that would not apply if quantum mechanics is valid.
In
QM there is, so to speak, a shortest length and shortest time, where for
anything less than that. the laws of spacetime, and these mathematical
constructs, don't work.)
Paul:
Yes, I read that somewhere.
Regards
Paul
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 19 2004 - 09:48:40 BST