From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jun 04 2005 - 18:34:41 BST
Ham,
--- I have a problem only with "levels of value" since I think values are
--- subjectively differentiated according to the type of phenomena they
--- apply
--- to. Of course I understand Essence to be the ultimate value. But you
--- are
--- speaking here of existential value, which to me is SOM oriented.
This would only be the case if I was somehow making an essential/existential
distinction, which I don't think I have.
---
--- > The MOQ agrees with (A) that it is scientifically evident that the
--- material
--- > world appears to have evolved prior to mind (or at least prior to
--- > language-writing organisms). However, it states that the consensus of
--- > beliefs that produce the scientific evidence for said evolution come
--- first.
---
--- You seem to be saying that belief in evolution is the cause of
--- evolution,
--- even though the "consensus of beliefs" occurred long after the event.
It is not proposed that belief causes material evolution. Part of the
consensus of belief is that material evolution has occurred independently of
such belief and predated it.
"'Time' and 'change' are primary concepts used to describe...evolution but
they do not cause evolution any more than Newton's law of gravity causes the
earth to stick together." [Pirsig to McWatt, 1997]
--- Does
--- this presuppose the flexibility of time, or is time also a product of
--- beliefs?
I would think that the MOQ holds that linear, unidirectional time,
particularly with respect to the projection into pre-history necessary for
an account of cosmological evolution, exists within a consensus of beliefs
i.e., a cultural pattern i.e., social + intellectual pattern.
The whole question of "which came first" only makes sense within a way of
talking about the world and the science which invented evolution talks this
way. The MOQ points out that this way of talking, and the quality decisions
that leads to it, "comes first" but not in terms of evolution.
--- And. if so, does this not suggest that "mind" which is the
--- source
--- of beliefs is pre-eminent?
In the MOQ, mind is not the source of beliefs. Quality is the source of
beliefs and mind is a term for describing the collection of, and
relationships between, beliefs.
In a weaker sense, an individual's mind (defined as above) might be
considered a "source" of beliefs (e.g. your parent causing you to have
beliefs by you finding their beliefs, or maybe just their authority,
valuable).
--- > "It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although
--- > "common sense" dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually
--- "common
--- > sense" which is a set of ideas, has to come first. This "common
--- sense" is
--- > arrived at through a huge web of socially approved evaluations of
--- various
--- > alternatives. The key term here is "evaluation," i.e., quality
--- decisions.
--- > The fundamental reality is not the common sense or the objects and
--- laws
--- > approved of by common sense but the approval itself and the quality
--- that
--- > leads to it." [Pirsig, LILA'S CHILD, Notes on Annotation 97]
---
--- Again, the implication is that ideas formed collectively at any time
--- determine the state of events at any time.
In the sense that "states of events" are the current highest quality
conception of things then I would agree that "ideas formed collectively at
any time determine the state of events at any time."
"Classical scientific reality keeps changing all the time as scientists keep
discovering new conceptual explanations. Every year they have to say 'Well,
last year we thought it was this way, but now we know what it is really
like.' ...even when it is explained to them carefully the SOM people are so
inured to their way of thinking that they still don't understand. I had one
letter asking, 'On the day before Newton was born did apples obey the law of
gravity?' I think he thought he had me trapped.
I had to answer him, 'No. Apples did not follow the law of gravity on the
day before Newton was born. On that day apples just fell.'" [Pirsig to
McWatt, 1997]
--- I believe that the structure
--- and
--- dynamics of the material world are a given, even though they are
--- intellectualized constructs.
I would trim that to "the world is a given" and add that "the world" in this
sense is restricted to the generalised undefined something of experience -
i.e., Quality - that produces beliefs which inform behaviour. "Structures,"
"dynamics" and "matter" are among those beliefs.
Regards
Paul
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 : Sat Jun 04 2005 - 18:37:55 BST