From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Sun Sep 25 2005 - 01:18:25 BST
Matt:
Indeed, Pirsig does not have a "Creation ontology," which I consider to be a
plus. If you are looking for a cause of the creation of existents or the
cause of rocks, philosophers like myself suggest that we have all we need in
the causal accounts given by physics (for rocks, like the Big Bang theory),
biology (for cells, like evolutionary theory), historical zoology (for how
animals started organizing themselves socially), and historical anthropology
(for how humans created language). I don't think we need anything more
grandiose than that, like the Creation story in Genesis or in Aristotle's
Metaphysics.
Case:
Would you agree with Pirsig that there is a descrete separation between the
four levels of MoQ?
Ham said:
Your analysis implies that the "patterns of experience" exist prior to and
independent of conscious awareness. This, I suppose, is what I've always
wondered about but never dared to ask. Then, are the levels "inorganic",
"biological", "social" and "intellectual" also pre-conscious?
Matt:
So it would seem to imply, but I've suggested on occasion that the
consequence of Pirsig's claims about experience being synonymous with
reality is that other terms dancing around in the same sphere, like
consciousness, are also thusly redescribed. On my reading, if we are
willing to suppose that rocks experience other rocks, then we could also
just as easily say that rocks are conscious of other rocks. Saying this is
no big deal. What we need to remember, though, is that rocks, cells,
animals, and humans have different kinds of consciousness. This is what I
intimated when I said that rocks only experience other rocks. While Pirsig
appears to be ubiquitizing experience and consciousness, thus making them
completely useless (which, in a sense, he is and with good reason), his
distinction in the different static levels captures what would appear to be
uniquely each level. He thus saves our intuition that there is a difference
between humans and rocks or, traditionally more threatening, humans and
animals (roughly, language).
Case:
Are you suggesting that consciousness from rock to man is continuous
process? Are the differences in kinds of consciousness quantitative or do
you see qualitative differences?
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 : Sun Sep 25 2005 - 01:46:23 BST