Re: MD The MOQ implies that there is more to reality than DQ & SQ.

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Sep 28 2005 - 08:51:27 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of"

    Matt, Ham and Multitude.

    Just as I thought all hope was gone for this discussion Matt
    delivered something that made it look like a philosophy site again
    - even a MOQ one. He made the reservation that he merely
    explains Pirsig's position, but it was one of the best of that sort.
    I'd like to dwell on a few points.

    Ham:
    > > 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?

    This must be the SOM puzzle if there is a world without anyone
    to watch it ... in a Quality garb.

    Matt: (24 Sep.)
    > 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

    Rather ..."Quality synonymous with reality" (experience=reality is
    a tautology)

    > 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 that rocks are conscious is not all easy. Consciousness
    means self-consciousness and implies the piece of rock saying to
    itself "I am a rock" and that is clearly not the case.

    > 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.

    As said, MOQ's axiom is Quality=Experience, not Consiousness=
    Experience. The latter is SOM's subjective stance, the one that
    so many believe is the road to the MOQ, while I claim it to be a
    blind alley.

    In SOM consciousness or self-consciousness is synonymous
    with Mind on one side of the S/O aggregate, and these grand
    concepts can't be "made completely useless". They represent a
    huge value in the MOQ; Intellectual Value in my "book".

    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 28 2005 - 09:59:20 BST