From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 12 2004 - 15:24:19 BST
Hi Scott- also see below.
Is not DQ the hand that creates the polarity that enables SQ to emerge?
[Scott replies:]
A particular is not a pattern. To be a pattern requires (a) =
repeatability, and (b) cognizability, that is, to be graspable as a =
whole, since otherwise there is way to appreciate value. But anyway...
DM: a particular can be an example of a universal
It is a myth that the MOQ has dissolved the mind/matter debates. It =
has appeared to have done so only be redefining some words so that the =
debates can no longer be adequately expressed. This is what materialism =
does, except the MOQ has added the word "quality", so that anything =
mysterious can be said to be done by DQ. which is no more help than =
saying it is done by God. The mind/matter question is not resolved =
unless the following questions have answers:
If there was a time that there were no universals, how did the first =
universal get created?
What is the origin of language?
Why does thinking and feeling seem to come from "within" (to be "me") =
while sense perception seems to come from "without" (to be caused by =
"not me")?
DM: the whole idea of SQ implies that patterns exist with their local =
separateness from the whole.
inner and outer is a function of being a part of a local SQ pattern =
operated sympathically relating
to other patterns that are relating proximately
Why does simply thinking that subject/object dualism is "just a static =
pattern of intellectual value" not allow one to dissolve the difference =
between me and not-me?
DM: because there has been an evolution from a One to a Many, but for =
there to be any awareness of these Others
there is a contradictory underlying unity.
Why is being aware of what I just thought different from being aware =
of the tree in front of me? (note: in SOM these are two different kinds =
of objects. In the MOQ one cannot say that, since in the MOQ only =
inorganic and biological patterns can be objects of awareness.)
Is mind identical to the brain (or: can there be mind, or =
consciousness, without a brain)?
DM: Well you are aware of social and intellectual patterns but not =
spacially, these should help us to realise
how we can think ontologically about the limits of our experience and =
that cocepts that are seeable but still only=20
concepts like spaceality and temporailty are not fundamental in the =
same way that subject-object is not
fundamental, or rather, that the inconsistencies of experience can =
actually allow us to think
past its tinted spectacles -back to realism, but carefully built on an =
honest and full and critical
conception/description of it.
And so on. The MOQ's answers (at least as you give them above, and I =
haven't seen any better answers) amount to dualism. There was matter =
(static particulars) and then there was mind (static universals). Unless =
DQ is God and created universals ex nihilo, in which case the MOQ is =
theistic. Unless universals "really are" reducible to particulars (say =
neural events), in which case the MOQ is materialist. In short, the MOQ =
provides nothing new for a philosophy of mind.
I had better repeat that I do find value in the MOQ, and that =
recognizing the reality of value is extremely important, and I certainly =
agree with it that the upper levels morally trump the lower. So what I =
am getting at here is to point out that as a metaphysics it is =
drastically incomplete, and without something drastic like my first =
point in the "bit of reasoning" (that all SQ are universals) there is no =
hope of moving on with it. To do so requires changing its existing =
attitude toward intellect, away from a SOM one (nominalistic).
DM: MAYBE WE NEED TO RETURN TO DISCUSSING THE PLATYPUS GANG
(And yes, I acknowledge that I don't have answers to these questions =
either, at least ones that can be expressed without violating the law of =
the excluded middle, or without questioning the absoluteness of time. My =
position (borrowed from Peirce, Coleridge, Barfield, Nishida, etc.) is =
that the answers require polarity, or contradictory identity. That =
subject and object arise together, that each defines the other as it =
negates the other.)
DM: Is it not SQ & DQ arise together? You seem to be forgetting that =
Pirsig is taking the SO divide and pulling all the patterns out of the =
subject to leave DQ on one side and all patterns on the SQ side. This =
then deconstructs everything we have thought to date about matter, =
objects, objectivity.
- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 12 2004 - 17:24:00 BST