From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Nov 02 2004 - 19:45:53 GMT
Scott:
On 2 Nov 2004 at 9:51, Scott Roberts wrote:
> msh says:
> What I've read in LILA is that individuals and the levels evolve,
> or fail to evolve (latch), through individual apprehension, or
> misapprehension, of Quality. Isn't this the sense of creation he's
> talking about? He doesn't mean, does he, that Quality creates
> individuals in the way a painter chooses paints and brushes to
> create a painting? Or in the way God is sometimes said to have
> created the heavens and the earth?
[Scott:] I think Pirsig avoids this issue. He wants to totalize
Quality, but does not draw out the implications. What was
apprehending value before there was consciousness?
msh says:
I think you're right that he avoids this issue, at least in the
primary texts with which I'm familiar. I have a feeling that your
question is a killer, and unanswerable within the MOQ, though maybe
someone here can help us.
So let's limit our choices of metaphysics to SOM, MOQ, and the
Metaphysics of Consciousness (MOC). Which is the most useful in
explaining our experience of the world around us?
For me, SOM is fine for dealing with scientific questions, but is
silent on moral issues. The rational empiricism of the MOQ absorbs
the excellence of som-science and expands upon it to include a
hierarchy for making moral decisions. I like this very much.
However, the weakness of the MOQ is its inability to explain the rise
of consciousness, that is, it probably can't answer your question
above. But I think the overall explanatory power of the MOQ, and the
undeniable existence of Quality, is enough for me to put up with the
mystery of consciousness, at least for now.
The Metaphysics of Consciousness assumes that consciousness is the
ground of being and has always existed, so the question of whence
consciousness arises becomes moot. Cool. But the MOC involves the
notion of non-material consciousness, what you call a verb without a
noun, an idea which, for me, is completely undecipherable.
Furthermore, I think the non-materialist underpinnings of the MOC
might well result in a fundamental schism between the MOC and the
undeniable value of scientific data. have no experience of non-
material consciousness, but I experience sense data and Quality every
day of my life.
So.... for me, for now, the MOQ is of higher explanatory value.
Whaddaya think?
Mark
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 -
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 : Tue Nov 02 2004 - 19:56:15 GMT