From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 21:59:34 BST
Greetings, Platt --
> 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 know I've been down the road with you on this before, and the problem has
always been the missing transcendent reality. Unless you define Quality as
that reality [e.g., God], you need a sensible agent that is capable of
recognizing and appreciating Quality. In other words, Quality is either the
Creator or the experience of the creature. Quality without a sensor makes
no sense, logically or metaphysically.
> > "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."
You see, Pirsig himself leads up to his Quality epistemology by talking
about "things being distinguished." Doesn't this suggest to you that,
prior to value being sensed, there must be a mind (intellect) that can
distinguish objects and events in order to appreciate their value?
Otherwise, why would he add the Metaphysics of Quality as a "second"
principle to the first one -- distinguishing things from each other? If you
think this through, I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion.
> > Thus, while your subterranean
> > molecule has no value for you or me, its presence is certainly
foundational
> > to the structure of the universe.
Platt:
> A fairly high-quality intellectual pattern I'd say.
It can not be an "intellectual pattern" if there's no intellect to discern
it. While it is conceivable that something approximating intellect may be
attributed to the Creator, I can't accept the notion of inanimate objects
possessing intellect. To me, that's simply the copout of an author who
couldn't bring himself to acknowledge a primary source.
I stand by my original assertion, and (yes) it does assume a subject/object
division:
> > 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.
Platt:
> 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.
It's the only division of experience for which we have empirical evidence.
You're not going to persuade me that there's empirical evidence for a
muti-level Quality heirarchy, Platt.
Ham:
> >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.
Platt:
> No. They definitely exist, as intellectual patterns of value.
This supposes that everything I drum up in my mind exists. If I dream that
the world has a fatal collision with an extra-terrestrial object, does that
exist, too?
Platt:
> 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."
I'd think about it if I only knew what it meant.
Regards.
Ham
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 - 22:05:47 BST