From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 02 2005 - 08:45:14 BST
David,
Interesting first post.
I've not had chance to digest your specific thoughts, but I'm one of
those who firmly believes "consciousness" is explicable. (I have lots
of strong views and recent readings on this.)
You may have noticed I've just started a thread trying to debate a
better definition of MOQ-Intellect, from an MoQ perspective. My
pre-emptive concluding comment was a wager that this would lead us
quickly to "consciousness" itself, (as the key subject, not the
definition of intellect).
One thing we all need to realise is that Pirsig was probably no expert
when it comes to the emergence of consciousness, and that his words
tell us things about the way he was thinking about it, but not much
about what it actually is, even in his own MoQ terms.
Looking forward to debate.
Ian
On 9/2/05, David Zentgraf <deceze@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Scott, all,
>
> good to see I'm not the only one missing this point. So at least it
> seems I did understand the MOQ correctly so far.
>
> But as far as I can see, without being able to provide an answer to
> these questions the MOQ is not (yet) the ultimate answer to
> everything and merely represents another, though perfectly valid,
> subset of a bigger picture. Or is that all it set out to do in the
> first place?
>
> > "In other words, consciousness did not arise at some point in time,
> > and the idea that consciousness is a consequence of the nervous system
> > reaching some level of complexity is just a materialist error."
>
> Interesting, would you mind going into details about that for me? The
> "complexity theory" at least provides some handle on the issue for
> me. Any alternative suggestions?
>
> Chrs,
> Dav
>
>
> On 2005/09/02, at 6:30, Scott Roberts wrote:
>
> > Dav,
> >
> > This has long been one of my complaints about the MOQ. The
> > questions of
> > consciousness and how thoughts arise are simply not addressed. It
> > could be
> > argued that in LILA, Pirsig had other fish to fry, in particular
> > giving an
> > account of morality, and it makes sense that in the space of that
> > book there
> > would be metaphysical issues he would have to leave out. But as far
> > as I can
> > see there is little way to use what is in the MOQ to address the
> > questions
> > you raise.
> >
> > My own view (which is not generally accepted here) is that to speak
> > of value
> > is to speak of consciousness (awareness of value). Since, according
> > to the
> > MOQ, there is value at all levels, so must there be consciousness
> > at all
> > levels. In other words, consciousness did not arise at some point
> > in time,
> > and the idea that consciousness is a consequence of the nervous system
> > reaching some level of complexity is just a materialist error.
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> 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 : Fri Sep 02 2005 - 10:02:13 BST