From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Jun 22 2005 - 02:08:27 BST
Platt, Matt, JoVo, Allen, Paul, Bo, et al --
Just a short note on one of the few statements in this thread that I can
honestly say I understand. Unfortunately, my understanding leads me to
refute it.
Platt said:
> Just so, any reality based on the subject/object split (SOM) is going to
be
> inconsistent or incomplete. Why? Because it makes no provision for values.
That would be a reasonable complaint if it were a valid assertion. But the
truth is that values are experienced ONLY in an SOM reality. Finite
creatures cannot experience the absolute, undifferentiated reality. But
from the perspective of that essential reality, value would have no more
meaning than desire. A thing is valuable to us because we do not possess
it. Absolute reality (Essence) possesses all; it is the perfect
"embodiment" of value, not its experience.
Here is what Aristotle said about desire. "... the man who desires
something desires what is not available to him, and what he doesnąt already
have in his possession; and what he neither has nor himself is-that which he
lacks-this is what he wants and desires." I think this definition is
equally true for value, and it is notable for being expressed in the context
of man's experience.
When we speak of a subject/object "split", the object's value is always
implied in the subject's awareness. You could say that value is a
"contingency" of experience, or that differentiated reality is a "trinity"
rather than a duality. What you can't say is that value is ruled out by a
subject/object reality. If Pirsig's MoQ "makes no provision for values" in
SOM, then it is either wrong or incomplete.
I wish I could address the other comments being made here, such as the
following --
Matt said:
> I think Pirsig makes a mistake if he says that SOM leaves out values.
> Much like my redescription of the fall of positivism recently,
> I think SOM _does_ include values, it just doesn't produce
> consequences that look any good to us.
Paul said (to Bo):
> You refer to "inside the MOQ" and a "Quality Universe" as if it were
> somewhere other than where we already are, right here, right now, all
> around and inside. I think your "Metaphysics is Reality" belief is a
> major problem.
Allen said:
But the MOQ avoids idealism by placing experience first. Here there are
shades of patterns in the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum or event
stream or DQ if you like corresponding to an evolutionary development which
symbolic manipulation has designated as a sq pattern derived from a Dynamic
process. No mind, no god and no fuss.
Alas, they are beyond my finite understanding!
Essentially yours,
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 : Wed Jun 22 2005 - 02:09:27 BST