From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Nov 09 2004 - 14:25:46 GMT
Hi Scott, Mark:
I think the following discussion raises some issues about the MOQ that
need further examination and discussion. Apparently Pirsig restricts the
definition of consciousness to what comes after "the basic flux of
experience." Example:
"He thought it was probably the light that infants see when their world is
still fresh and whole, before consciousness differentiates it into
patterns." (Lila, 26)
As regards "non-material consciousness," Pirsig would probably agree that
there's no such thing. But for "pure experience,".materiality is
irrelevant. "Pure experience cannot be called either physical or
psychical: it logically precedes this distinction." (Lila, 29)
I have always considered consciousness and experience to be
interdependent, i.e., you can't have one without the other. I've also
viewed the MOQ as presenting not only an evolutionary theory of values but
also an evolutionary theory of experience because to Pirsig, values and
experience are the same: "Quality is direct experience" (Lila, 5). If
consciousness is considered direct experience and direct experience is
Quality, then a Metaphysics of Consciousness is what Pirsig proposes.
Would appreciate your thoughts.
Best,
Platt
Mark:
> > 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.
Scott:
> Since the mystery of consciousness is my main interest, it is not enough
> for me.
Mark:
> > 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.
Scott:
> I only mentioned using verbs instead of nouns as a way to avoid bringing in
> presuppositions of the nature of whatever ground is being considered. So
> one can speak of perceiving, valuing, or knowing, without presupposing a
> self-existent perceiver, valuer, or knower, thus avoiding presupposing SOM.
> Another way is to posit a completely undefinable ground which makes
> perceiving, perceiver, and perceived possible. In both cases, though, we
> are only emphasizing our ignorance -- learned ignorance, as Nicholas of
> Cusa called it.
Mark:
> > 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.
Scott:
> The MOC would not undercut scientific findings any more than the MOQ or
> SOM. The only difference is that the MOC understands that what science is
> studying is what consciousness produces, namely, our sense data. In any
> case, you have a great deal of experience of the non-material. When you are
> thinking or dreaming you are experiencing non-material consciousness. When
> you are reading, you are not experiencing ink on paper, but non-material
> thoughts. You need to make a conscious effort to focus on the material
> (e.g., the shape of the letters) rather than on the meaning of the words.
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 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 15:41:23 GMT