From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Jun 10 2005 - 06:08:57 BST
Hi Paul --
> Could I have been any more direct than -- "In the context of the
> prevailing scientific world-view, and the MOQ static levels, material
> evolution occurred independently and prior to our beliefs." -- ???
You could have said: Yes, I believe evolution occurred independently prior
to our beliefs. (That would have been more direct.) As stated, it leaves
me wondering what you really believe. You make your answer contingent on
the mutual consensus of science and "MOQ static levels", although I don't
see that the latter provides any supportive data or insight on evolution.
Despite your claim that "an individual's thought is as unique as one's DNA",
you don't seem to give much credence to personal opinion -- even your own!
"Collective consciousness", by the way, is a postmodern twist on Carl Jung's
theory of consciousness which distinguished the "collective unconscious"
from the subconscious realm of mental activity common to all human beings.
This concept became a key element in Freud's development of psycho-analysis
and popularized the notion that unconscious motives control behavior. The
metaphysical implications influenced such 20th century philosophers as
Teilhard de Chardin and Herbert Marcuse. Part of the New Age ideology is
the belief that a Collective Consciousness rules over man's behavior, in
effect replacing the deity of traditional religion. The archetypes of this
belief system include forms, symbols, and mythological themes that are
expressed by people in all cultures.
I bring this up because I believe Pirsig has also followed this trend in
defining Intellect as a function which one draws from external (i.e,
inorganic level) sources. Your emphasis on "consensus" as applied to belief
systems would appear to support that trend. What I'm trying to establish
here is the need to define human awareness, which is my umbrella term for
the "sentience" category that embraces organic sensibility, cognizance,
personal memory, intellection, and -- most importantly-- self-awareness. To
the best of my knowledge, these "mind functions" have never been addressed
or "patterned" by Mr. Pirsig in a meaningful way that would indicate their
metaphysical significance. My conclusion is that either he didn't see them
as significant or the proprietary nature of awareness never occurred to him.
Paul:
> My point is that one's beliefs can't be separated from the language
> in which they are spoken/written (they aren't sat there in some latent
form
> waiting to be expressed) . . .
You and I disagree on the epistemology of knowledge and ideas. I tend to
side with the Kantian concept of "a priori" knowledge, and I would have
expected Pirsig to have developed that concept into the MoQ, since my
limited understanding of his thesis is that Intellect constructs reality.
> and every language comes embedded with so many
> shared assumptions about the world that there is very little that is truly
> personal (sentimental connotations aside) in anything we say. Originality
> in thought is originality in language which occurs through new metaphor
etc.
Yes, but there IS original thought, Paul. There has to be in order to build
consensus. And it's the thought that's important, not the linguistics or
the metaphor used to express it. This is a line of reasoning I fail to
understand. It's as if you were saying that a portrait is the pigment on
canvas rather than the image rendered, or that a news broadcast is a
succession of RF waves transmitted to a radio. You are missing the very
essence of subjective cognizance when you attribute ideas and thoughts to an
external source. Is this really your personal belief, or is it that you
fear apostasy by going against the MoQ "consensus" that Intellect is
non-SOM?
> You keep on talking about reason as a faculty of the mind. . . .
Which, of course, it is.
> This implies that there is something called mind which has functions
> which makes it sound like an organ. . . .
You are the one who suggested "organ".
> I am saying reason
> is more like a skill that one learns and not a special function of
something
> called mind that humans are born with.
Well, I guess one could say that reason is a "mental skill". But, again,
that IS a function of proprietary intelligence -- loosely termed "mind" --
which "humans are born with". So what is your point in denying it?
My point is that what you're now calling "mind" is the pivotal entity in the
whole scheme of things. And it has been totally neglected in the MoQ. Mr.
Pirsig has handed us a philosophy without a subject.
> The MOQ is a set of beliefs that help me make sense of my
> experience. If I think of my experience as being primarily of values
> it helps me make more sense of my life than if I think of it as
> all just being particles floating around and colliding in several
> dimensions.
From recent reports, scientists don't think of the physical world as
particles anymore; it's wave theory now. But I accept your credo as a
direct and honest statement of your position.
Thanks for the consideration.
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 : Fri Jun 10 2005 - 06:10:04 BST