From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 17:18:54 BST
Hi Ham,
> As is my nasty habit, I'd like to inject my own thought into this
> discussion. Let's make it a real argument! In your dialogue with Platt,
> you came up with one of those questions that it would seem Mr. Pirsig is
> supposed to have solved. You asked:
> > Is there value experience in a
> > molecule 100 miles below the earth's surface? The MOQ says there is. No
> > MOQist experiences that, though, so it is unempirical assumption.
Aren't assumptions, by definition, unempirical? Anyway, what the MOQ says
is that the intellectual pattern, "molecules have value experiences" is
high quality based on the harmony of the entire structure of the MOQ. In
other words, it sings if you know the musical score.
> I'll follow the approved custom here and quote from the Master:
>
> "There's a principle in physics that if a thing can't be distinguished from
> anything else, it doesn't exist. To this the Metaphysics of Quality adds a
> second principle: if a thing has no value it isn't distinguished from
> anything else. Then, putting the two together, a thing that has no value
> does not exist. The thing has not created the value. The value has
> created the thing." [LILA, Chpt. 8]
>
> Now, I see two problems with this epistemology.
>
> The first is, it gives us no referent subject -- no "who" or "what" -- to
> determine whether something has value.
Experience is value. There's no difference.Your "who" or "what" assumes
the metaphysics of subjects-objects which you seem unable to
set aside.
> Thus, while your subterranean
> molecule has no value for you or me, its presence is certainly foundational
> to the structure of the universe.
A fairly high-quality intellectual pattern I'd say.
> So that, if the universe had a Designer,
> that molecule would clearly have value. Otherwise, for something to "be
> distinguished from anything else" requires the discrimination of a rational
> mind -- presumably, man's.
A necessary conclusion if you previously assume a subject/object division.
> Secondly, if man is the missing subject (and Pirsig implies as much while
> absurdly denying that Quality requires a subject), then nothing exists
> which can not be experienced [i.e., valued].
As said, experience and Quality are inseparable. You "absurdly" assert
that the subject-object division is the only possible division of
experience that makes sense.
>This means that such accepted
> existents as the other side of the moon, a tree falling in the forest with
> no one to see it, all subatomic particles, any color outside of the visible
> spectrum, things in total darkness, and the creative process itself, do not
> really exist.
No. They definitely exist, as intellectual patterns of value.
> Now I personally buy into that theory; however, I don't believe Mr. Pirsig
> does, and I'm almost certain that neither you nor Platt does. Nonetheless,
> if Quality [Value] is posited as the Primary Source, it logically follows
> that unless there is a sensible agent capable of recognizing Quality,
> nothing exists. For anyone.
Right. No experience, no existence. But forget about a" sensible agent" or
a subject "capable of recognizing quality." That's S/O stuff. Think
instead of Scott's "pervasive consciousness."
Best,
Platt
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 May 17 2005 - 17:29:32 BST