From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Sep 14 2005 - 21:50:28 BST
Hi Bo,
Previously I wrote:
> > The question for all is: Shall we accept the definition of
> > "experience" the same as Pirsig's definition of "pure experience,
> > i.e., "experience is value?" I vote Yes.
You said:
> About Value being the ground-stuff of reality (Quality=Reality)
> there can be no question (if one finds the MOQ of value!) so that
> is granted.
The question still out there is: "What is value?" My answer is: "Existence
itself." Do you agree?
> Regarding awareness or consciousness I notice that there is a
> debate going on and that some stresses awareness/
> consciousness as reality's ground, but haven't understood that if
> so: Go ahead construct a Metaphysics of Consciousness and -
> voila! - it's the MOQ in a different guise.
I agree. Consciousness/awareness/experience by a process of evaluation
creates existence. "That which has no value doesn't exist." (Lila, 8)
> About sensation and emotion I see these terms useful in showing
> how Quality "expresses" itself at the biological and social levels,
> but they are not meant to replace Quality.
Yes. Sensations and emotions, being aspects of consciousness, are
operatives in the evaluation process.
Am I anywhere near to your own thinking about this? If so, how do we
answer objections to Idealism? It just doesn't make sense to most people
that the existence of something depends on someone experiencing it, in
spite of quantum physics showing that observation (evaluation) brings
particles into existence.
Best regards,
Platt
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 Sep 14 2005 - 22:29:02 BST