From: jhmau (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue Jan 21 2003 - 18:59:50 GMT
Hi Platt
> Hi Joe:
>
> > joe: the questions I was trying to raise were How does a theory of
> > knowledge necessary to MoQ differ from abstraction in SOM? What is the
> > validity of our experience? Persig proposed an instinctive sense
> > explaining how a baby learns, and how we know quality in a rhetorical
> > composition. How does this apply to static quality? Your answer seems
to
> > be we experience static quality. I assume you mean it is instinctively
> > sensed, and we use a word for the pattern. Is it your position that
> > "latching" is built into the instinctive sense when "evolution toward
> > betterment" is sensed?
>
> Yes. My "position" is that moral judgment occurs simultaneously with
> perception as an instinctive response. When we perceive a pattern we
> immediately decide not only what it is but whether it's good, bad or
> indifferent to us. Higher animals respond instinctively the same way.
joe: I do not agree that "moral judgements" equal "instinctive response."
I accept that an instinct can be trained to a more intense use, and there is
instinctive memory, but an instinct reflecting on itself seems to require a
subject and an object.
In response to the question: How is the instinctive sense configured? You
responded:
> > Platt
> > > I would guess the same way as the moral order is configured, i.e., by
a
> > > hierarchy of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual levels.
> >
> > joe: as I understand your answer you would also see the instinctive
sense
> > to be configured with the ability to experience the moral orders. Our
> > instinctive sense: is the moral order sensing, evolution judging,
quality
> > experiencing faculty of a sentient being. I don't know that I agree
with
> > that.
>
> Platt: I presume by "moral orders" you mean Pirsig's unique hierarchy of
> moral levels. Our moral judgments relate to one or more of these levels.
> Jumping off a hot stove is a biological judgment. Blocking Communist
> infiltration of the local school is a social judgment. Determining the
> meaning of a sentence is an intellectual judgment. Extending morality
> beyond social behavior makes the MoQ new and different.
joe: I prefer to keep action and knowledge separate as I try to delineate a
theory of knowledge using instinctive sensing. I acknmowledge that "moral
orders" as dimensions can be experienced. When I realize "what I do is not
what I wish to do" I see something else happening so I keep 'judgements'
apart from 'instincts'. From this point of view I have no idea what you are
talking about in this paragraph.
> Platt:
> The instinctive moral sense is like intuition--not always right when
> judged in the fullness of time.
joe: again I am trying to find the boundaries of an instinctive sense of
knowledge. While there may be a "categorical imperative" in an instinctive
sense, other things, also, have to be included. It is too confusing to try
to talk of everything all at once.
> > joe: I assume a Creator is not instinctively sensed?
>
Platt
> Instinctively we want someone to care about us. IMO this is the source
> of belief in God.
joe: i wandereed and you answered.
> > Joe
> > > > "Impossible to evolve sentient from non-sentient forms." I agree,
so
> > what
> > > > can be added?
> > >
> > Platt
> > > A universal principle of betterment that drives evolution.
> >
> > joe: between 'betterment' and 'evolution' I don't know which is the cart
> > and which is the horse, or how they are sensed?
>Platt: DQ is the horse, SQ is the cart. Both are sensed instinctively.
joe: i was trying to put words in your mouth that "evolution" and
"betterment" were the same thing. Since SQ comes after DQ it may be that
both are sensed instinctively, but it is a different sensing. I do not
think that "existence" or "purpose" are ever SQ. "Purpose" experienced as
SQ IMO becomes predestination without free-will. My purpose keeps changing
as I act.
> > Platt
> > > I would put Existence and Purpose as subsets of Quality, but agree
that
> > > they are absolutes.
> >
> > joe: you are making conditions for a huge instinctive sense in order to
sense
> > 'subsets' in the way it is configured. I don't know how the
'instinctive
> > sense' so configured would differ from the mind and will of SOM?
>
> Platt: "Subsets" is an intellectual judgment. It harmonizes with my
intellectual
> pattern. So I instinctively judge it to be better.
joe: my objection still stands, you have not answered it. Such an
instinctive sense so delineated demands deconstruction as does SOM.
>
> > Platt I do want to
> > Thank You! for the courtesy of your response!
>
> Ditto. I'm enjoying our conversation very much.
>
> Platt
Joe
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 18:54:03 GMT