From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Nov 10 2004 - 20:23:48 GMT
Platt, 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)
I believe current psychological research shows that babies are born with
the ability to detect some patterns -- faces, for instance. So this
statement needs, at least, refinement.
>
> 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 regard "pure experience" as something of a myth, but see below.
>
> 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.
The problem is with how we use the word 'consciousness'. There would also
be a problem with how we use the words 'experience' and 'value', except
that Pirsig has definitively said that in the MOQ they are, so to speak, to
be used transcendentally, that is, we assume that all experience is value,
and all value is experience, and value is everything.
But, as you say, Pirsig seems to prefer to use 'consciousness' in the way
materialists do, as something that came into existence at some point in the
history of evolution. As I see it, this is incoherent, since to say there
is value is to say there is consciousness of value. If there isn't
consciousness of value, then there is no value -- there is just meaningless
existence.
The problem, I assume, is that we are unable to think of consciousness
except in S/O terms. There are two possible answers to this, as I see it.
One is to assume that there is always some subject and some object, so back
when all there was only the inorganic (as far as we can tell empirically),
then there must have also been some non-material consciousness observing
the inorganic and thinking "this is good". The other answer is to assume
that it is somehow meaningful to speak of consciousness without an object
and without a subject. Since this is how Franklin Merrell-Wolff describes
his mystical experience, I consider him worth listening to on this
question. If we accept this answer, then our inability to think of
consciousness except in S/O terms just means that we are not finished in
terms of the evolution of thinking. That is, we are currently evolved to a
state where consciousness has taken a strictly S/O form. Now if we follow
Barfield and accept that in earlier times the S/O form was not strict, and
the mystical claim that the S/O form is transcendable, then the ability to
speak meaningfully of consciousness without S/O lies in our future.
Anyway, you might want to look at the messages I recently posted to DMB
(11/8), one with quotes from Merrell-Wolff (subject: Empiricism and its
limitation), the other with a long quote from Barfield (in the On Faith
thread). In my view, the MOQ needs this sort of thinking to become
coherent. It could be that what Pirsig and James mean by "pure experience"
is what Merrell-Wolff means by "consciousness without S/O", so it just
turns into a question of which term one privileges, but there are
ramifications that the Merrell-Wolff view takes into account that the MOQ
does not. Such as timelessness.
- 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 -
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 : Wed Nov 10 2004 - 20:34:50 GMT