From: David Zentgraf (deceze@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 16:48:05 BST
Hi Renier,
> I doubt anyone would consider that proof since it's purely
> hypothetical.
I guess most of what's happening on this mailing list is purely
hypothetical. Is the MOQ and "Value" anything more than hypothetical?
So what gives? ;-)
> What caused the first thing that ever happened?
Very good question. But this applies to my theory as much as it does
to any other. For all the Creationists out there it's "Who created
the creator?". For all the MOQers it's "What got valued first?". For
the more scientific guys it's "What happened before the Big Bang?".
So... No answer.
> Dav:
> I'd say thoughts = consciousness. Maybe even thoughts = consciousness
> = DQ. It's what happens "now", what's right on the forefront of
> experience.
>
> Renier:
> I would say, becoming aware of a thought means consiousness, means SQ
> Reinier:
> I would rather say, the process of valueing creates new thoughts
> based on existing SP of different levels.
I guess we're saying more or less the same things. Trying not to
apply any possibly confusing terms, I think it basically works like
this: You got "stuff" in your brain. You get(/experience) external
stimuli. Stimuli get filtered through the already existing "stuff" in
your brain. You produce some result, be it a physical reaction or new
"stuff" in your brain. Awareness/consciousness exists somewhere in
this process, when new stimuli come in and new "stuff" is created.
Do you agree so far?
> But because the concept 'valueing' to us has a very strong
> intellectual context, this gives rise to discussion about the word.
That's probably the biggest thing about the MOQ. "Value" carries a
lot of extra baggage since we usually see it as purely subjective,
while Pirsig claims it to be the exact opposite. Does anybody dare to
look for another term that's not as confusing, or at least to come up
with a clear definition of Pirsig's "valuing"?
> BTW I'm not entirely sure on the usefullness of having a social and
> intellectual level.
Me neither. The social level is somewhere "above" the intellectual
one in my eyes (using a bottom-up view), it comes later and is only
relevant to the intellectual mind, but to nothing else. So I think
it's not worth discussing it in the context of meta-physics.
Chrs,
Dav
On 2005/10/03, at 17:14, platootje@netscape.net wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> You say:
> There is no thought without cause. Never said anything
> else. What about the famous example used by Pirsig himself, about the
> child born without senses living on life support? It's been said that
> it could not develop any thought, because of missing input.
>
> Me:
> I doubt anyone would consider that proof since it's purely
> hypothetical.
>
> You:
> That does
> not only explain the principle of an "a priori" world, the reason why
> Pirsig used the example, but it also follows that there's no thought
> without cause and therefore no free will.
>
> Me:
> I know this question has been raised before in this contex, but I
> got lost in all the threads so please allow me to ask you:
> What caused the first thing that ever happened?
> (I'm aware that not having an answer to this question won't proof
> anything, neither to me nor to you.... But having an answer would
> proof a lot for you I guess)
>
> You:
> I'd say thoughts = consciousness. Maybe even thoughts = consciousness
> = DQ. It's what happens "now", what's right on the forefront of
> experience.
>
> Me:
> I would say, becoming aware of a thought means consiousness, means SQ
>
> I said earlier:
>
>> To apply it to the MoQ, a thought is an intellectual static pattern
>> coming from
>> DQ.
>>
>
> You replied:
> I'd say a thought is DQ based on external stimuli *and* already
> present static patterns. DQ/thoughts create static patterns, which in
> turn influence new "incoming" DQ/thoughts, sometimes producing new or
> simply altered DQ/thoughts and thereby in turn new static patterns
> (and so on).
>
> Me:
> I would rather say, the process of valueing creates new thoughts
> based on existing SP of different levels.
>
> Me earlier:
>
>> At the same time there is DQ that gets 'valued' on other levels and
>> thus becomes
>> part of the social, organic or inorganic level. It all comes from
>> the same
>> 'source', DQ, but the level on which it gets valued, creates the
>> mental picture
>> of it (This is the intellectual S/O division).
>>
>
> You:
> Yes, no, maybe. Not sure I get it correctly. I think DQ/thoughts in
> the end only produce a physical reaction, i.e. behaviour (-patterns).
> The "social level" is just an abstraction of the reactions of a large
> group of people, which all behave more or less the same way (because
> they've all been influenced by the same stimuli and therefore all
> produce pretty much the same reactions, cause and effect). DQ doesn't
> really get valued on different levels, it's just one and the same
> level, but the results can be broken down into different levels if
> you so wish.
>
> Me:
> According to Pirsig it does get valued on different levels. One
> atom clinging to another atom thus forming a molecule can be
> decribed entirely in terms of valueing. The result is a SP on the
> inorganic level.
> But because the concept 'valueing' to us has a very strong
> intellectual context, this gives rise to discussion about the word.
> 'Thinking' is the intellectual valueing process, while 'Chemistry'
> is the inorganic valueing process.
> BTW I'm not entirely sure on the usefullness of having a social and
> intellectual level.
>
> Kind regards,
> Reinier.
> __________________________________________________________________
> Look What The New Netscape.com Can Do!
> Now you can preview dozens of stories and have the ones you select
> delivered to you without ever leaving the Top Home Page. And the
> new Tool Box gives you one click access to local Movie times, Maps,
> White Pages and more. See for yourself at http://
> netcenter.netscape.com/netcenter/
>
>
>
> 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 : Wed Oct 05 2005 - 20:22:12 BST