From: Chris Vlaar (C.C.Vlaar@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 18:20:28 BST
Hello my dear Moq'ers,
it's been so long since I have been around here and it is so good to
be back. I am not going to comment on this thread beacause everyone
knows that God is dead: some can face it; some people do not - the
face of nihilism is an ugly one and we can make-up all kind of
substitutes but the emptiness remains; I guess that is why the oder of
'the divine putrification' also is present here, even in virtual
space. A question like 'Is God real?' is only the manifestation of
this emptiness, without the emptiness such questions would not be
posed anyway. But, I promised not to comment on this thread so I will
stop, all too many of these debates have ended in endless jibberish.
But I am really looking forward to some fruitful discussions and
practising my english writing skills for a bit. I am sure I won't last
long here because I do not subscribe to any word Pirsig states in '
Lila' , but hey, what's wrong with a little counter-weight for a
little while?
Regards,
Chris
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:30:51 -0600, Scott Roberts <jse885@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> > My belief in the reality of Quality derives form the absurdity of a
> > world without it, as Pirsig so clearly shows in ZMM.
> >
> > So, my question here is: How would a world, devoid of Quality, be
> > different from a world devoid of God? Please be as specific as
> > possible.
> >
> > Scott Roberts, if you are reading along, I'd be interested in your
> > response to this question, just substitute "disembodied
> > consciousness" for "God."
>
> My response is that there is no difference, in that a world devoid of
> disembodied consciousness implies a world devoid of Quality, and
> vice-versa. That is, to say that value is omnipresent implies that
> consciousness and intellect are omnipresent, since value implies
> appreciation of value and comparisons of value (a sense of better and
> worse). The phrase "B values pre-condition A" is meaningless unless A is
> appreciated, and that there is a preference for A over C, D, etc (or over
> not-A). This implies the use of memory. To operate in a system like this
> (as is implied in the phrase "static pattern of value") is to operate in a
> system of ideas. Since it certainly doesn't appear that rocks and such are
> thinking or valuing, and since one can't sense an idea, one must locate
> this consciousness and intellect, like Quality, outside the world of our
> senses (that's a crude way to put it, but nevermind for now). The tricky
> part is to avoid putting an S/O form over this conception, but that is
> probably just a limitation of our current intellects. This, it seems to me,
> is why folks have trouble accepting it. The assumption that words like
> 'appreciation', 'intellect', and 'idea' should be restricted to humans, is
> a SOM assumption, just as is the assumption that value is subjective.
>
> - 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
>
>
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 Oct 21 2004 - 18:31:25 BST