From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Aug 31 2004 - 22:40:25 BST
From Ham Priday to Platt Holden and all
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004, 5:30 PM
Subject: RE: MD The individual in the MOQ
In reply to Paul's criticism of my Rand quotation, you said:
>
> Reason says that for ideas to be shared or transferred, brains are
required.
> To put it another way, brains are "essential" to creation, sharing and
> transferring of ideas.
This is certainly true. The brain is the instrument of man's cognizance.
It is responsible for defining and quantifying the phenomena of experience
as cognizant objects and events in the space/time world. These are the
images we convey to others through language. To remove or impair the
brain's functioning power is to destroy not only the images of our
experience but our connection with the past, and our ability to communicate
all of this knowledge to others through language. There is no question but
that man depends on his brain and neural faculties -- a biological (organic)
system -- for his cognizance of physical reality and his participation in
it.
But man (himself) is more than an organic cerebro-nervous organism, and one
of the aims of philosophy is to discover just what that implies. For
example, in addition to cognizance, there is pure sensibility (esthesis),
thought or reason (cogitation), sensation (pain, pleasure, and the
emotions), perception of qualitative values, and the "psyche" which almost
no one wants to define. All of these are "subsets" of experience with one
notable characteristic: they are proprietary to the subjective "self", that
is to say, my experience is exclusive to me alone. No one else experiences
reality as Ham Priday does. Each of us observes a reality that is
universally identical but experientially personal. Thus the world is the
object of a multitude of subjective perspectives.
Paul explained:
> The MOQ argues that experience must be the starting point of philosophy.
> Where did the subject come from? Did the subject exist before it had an
> experience? What was it doing before it had an experience? How does a
> subject know it was already there without experience?
He has a valid point. What he's saying is that the "object" precedes the
"subject", which is the view of science and the existentialists. The MOQ
attempts to avoid this by calling the object "Quality" instead of "matter",
and by claiming that it is also the essence of man. Ureka! The MOQ has
resolved the duality of existence. Not so fast, my friends! MOQ is not a
new metaphysical theory; it's plain old subject-object materialism that
plays a trick on us. The trick is in the label, Quality. (Maybe this is
why semiotics is so important to Arlo.)
I maintain that this duality cannot be resolved in existence; it can only be
resolved where it is created -- by the a prior source that transcends
existence. This source is not a physical attribute nor an attribute of the
subject, because the Absolute Source can have no attributes. But by
realizing its Value, we as individuals can approach Essence through
psycho-emotional sensibility.
You continue:
> What's got me thinking there's a problem with part of the MOQ is Pirsig's
> appeal on the one hand to logical consistency and on the other hand
> denying the concept of self while at the same time accepting the concept
> of "I" throughout his writings.
You're on the fence, Platt; I've already made the jump. Paul says he's
taking a well-deserved leave to write up his own version of MOQ. As the
clearest thinker on this topic, if he feels the need for a re-do of this
puzzling philosophy, I'm sure we would all profit from it. It's unfair,
really, to pick a philosophy to pieces in order to make them fit a
preconceived scheme. But I can understand why it happens; I did it myself,
bringing to the task my own preconceptions. MOQ Discuss is a group of
devout followers of a belief system by which the members confidently
designate virtually everything. It isn't reasonable to expect you or any
other participant in this group to trash what is regarded as Truth and start
afresh with a "foreign" perspective. But it's the best way to get the most
out of a new philosophy.
So, for now, I'm going to take a "back seat" in this discussion -- at least
until Paul completes his new MOQ thesis. I'll try to answer questions re:
Essentialism, of course, for those of you who have read my thesis. (No
semiotics questions, please!) But I'll stop playing interference and will
desist from posing challenges to the home team. I know the game must go on.
Enjoy it!
Essentially yours,
Ham
> 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 Sep 01 2004 - 02:24:54 BST