From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jun 16 2005 - 22:44:00 BST
Hi Bo, Paul
Bo, many thanks for your kind comments. We're basically on the same page
and have been from day one when you introduced me to the MOQ via your
essay on the web entitled "The Quality Event."
> I don't know if you agree with my "thinking as silent language",
> nor am I sure what static level you see thoughts belonging to, but
> I for one see the division "thoughts/what thoughts are about" as
> intellect, but thinking as (silent) language is a social pattern. I
> can't but kick Paul and David again. They are latter-day
> Shakespeareans postulating intellect's subjective half as primary.
I see thoughts as static values solidified by symbols and grammatical
construction belonging to both the social and intellectual levels and
having been derived from pure, pre-thought experience. I don't distinguish
between silent and spoken thoughts except in the sense that silent
thoughts generally have higher value being more immediate to what I value
most -- direct experience.
I don't know about DMB but I think Paul would argue with your assessment
that he considers subjectivity primary. From what I read, he is very
dubious of the S/O split, but rather advocates like Pirsig the primacy of
values, even going so far in his recent post to Scott to question the
notion of consciousness and whether there's any distinction between
awareness and value. In fact, I'd be very interested in your answers to
Paul's questions:
Where do you draw the line between non-consciousness and consciousness?
Assuming you can draw a line do you mean non-human vs.human, inorganic vs.
organic, matter vs. mind, awake vs. asleep?
Do you distinguish consciousness from experience?
Are you saying awareness exists first and causes value? Or that they arise
together? If so, why is the distinction worth making?
Can you have awareness without value?
What struck me was I read these question and tried to pose my own answers
was that we might do well to eliminate the word "consciousness" all
together because it presumes SOM on its face and starts metaphysics down
the wrong path before the horse is even out of the barn.
Best,
Platt
>
> > In the West, the subject-object assumption dominates verbal
> > thinking.
>
> YES!! To the degree of building a S/O metaphysics on this
> foundation.
>
> > But, Pirsig has demonstrated (conclusively to my way of
> > thinking) that the core of reality from which everything else comes
> > into being, including thought, is Quality - the creative force, the
> > primary, pure experience of value that's right in front of our noses,
> > every waking moment.
>
> Agree again. Quality has built the Static Level Universe of which
> the inorganic (not SOM's matter) is the first manifestation.
>
> Thanks for a most thoughtful post Platt
>
> Bo
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Thu Jun 16 2005 - 23:55:31 BST