From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 27 2005 - 17:19:00 GMT
Guys
The hot stove thing. Is it not obvious that reflex
actions are a form of SQ, i.e. something DQ laid down
along time ago about the value-quality of hot surfaces coming
into contact with merely warm bottoms? The whole point
of SQ is that it becomes object-like, unconscious, mechanistic,
and that the oldest SQ is what we refer to as matter. So that
what is now matter-form is the SQ that DQ laid down longest ago
for the quality-value-reasons that were available at that level/time.
SQ is what we might call fixed-values or values-frozen into matter
or behaviour. Some SQ of course can be changed by becoming open
to DQ and quality choices once again.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: MD Two Theses in the MOQ
> Paul:
>
> Thanks for explaining your position on some of the questions I asked. It
> appears our differences boil down to a single key idea that you set up as
> follows:
>
>> I think judgement implies an element of reflection or consideration . . .
>
> Contrast this to Pirsig's description of knowing the value of a situation
> without any reflection or consideration:
>
> "Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will
> verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an
> undeniably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is
> negative. This low quality is not just a vague, woolly-headed, crypto-
> religious, metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience: It is not a
> judgment about an experience. It is not a description of experience. The
> value itself is an experience." (Lila, 5)
>
> Note particularly Pirsig's caution, "It is not a judgment about an
> experience." Yet, the individual "knows" (without judging) that the
> situation is low quality.
>
> Here then is the crux of my confusion. It seems I can know I'm having a
> low quality experience without making a value judgment, i.e., I'm able to
> instantly evaluate a situation without thinking.
> .
> To put it another way, art critic Clement Greenberg describes the esthetic
> experience: "Esthetic enjoyments are immediate, intuitive, undeliberate
> and involuntary leaving not room for conscious application of standards,
> criteria, rules or precepts."
>
> I've always felt that Greenberg and Pirsig were describing the same
> phenomenon.
>
>> Paul: I think your confusion comes from conflating Dynamic 'value' with
>> static 'value judgements'.
>
> Indeed, that may be the problem. Do you see experiencing Dynamic 'value'
> the same as Greenberg describes the aesthetic experience?
>
> Thanks.
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Mon Nov 28 2005 - 03:13:57 GMT