From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 19:54:27 BST
Hi Steve (and Platt),
I thought this post was quite right on, but I need more explanation from you
because your section on Free Will seems to me to be backward with regard to
what is "within" and "primary". I seem to have had a different life
history, because it seems to me that the view from "outside", the "SOM"
view, is the view that sees oneself as a subject with agency, and is the
secondary view. The primary experience is determined by life histories and
the whole universe of quality. Sure, you did what you did because it was
your choice, but the question is how did you arrive at your choice? Though
impossible to nail down specifically, doesn't the MoQ say that you arrived
at your choice because of the primacy of the quality experience, AKA
morality? Don't you admit to that when you speak of how a personal life
history determines how a quality event is experienced? Isn't a person
always playing catch-up to their history? Free will would imply that we
could detatch ourselves from our history and experience quality as though we
had a different history, which we can't do. We are stuck in our history.
I guess I have a more fundamental question about what you mean by within -
do you mean within Steve, or within Quality?
Thanks for your time, (Platt, thanks also - ps the end of my last post to
you was sloppily written, i left out some quotes to show when i was mocking
my antagonists)
Johnny
>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD MOQ
>Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 08:28:50 -0400
>
>Hi Steve:
>
> > The following are some thoughts on the MOQ based on the insight that
>values
> > are internal to awareness. It seems completely obvious, but I had lost
> > track of this simple idea in pondering the MOQ. Comments are
>appreciated.
>
>The internal/external split is good old SOM, but necessary in discussing
>the MoQ because we are educated (brainwashed) to think that way.
>
> > Quality is the view from within--the only view there is.
>
>Yes. A key fundamental of the MoQ.
>
> > MOQ is first and foremost a "subjective" metaphysics. SOM is primarily
>an
> > "objective" metaphysics. The MOQ explains the view from within. SOM
> > imagines a point of view that is independent of awareness.
>
>Yes. The "view from within" is experience, the universal starting place of
>reality. Experience of what? Quality, morality, values. They're
>inseparable.
>
> > Values apply to the view from within. They are "subjective" in SOM
>terms.
> > Quality=Experience=Reality from an *internal* point of view. From the
> > outside, values look like causes and tendencies. From the inside, Value
>is
> > all there is.
>
>Values don't just "apply" to the view from within; they constitute the
>entire view. As you say at the end, "Value is all there is."
>
> > There really is no external point of view. The external point of view
>is a
> > derivative one. It is a mental construction. The existence of an
> > objective reality is inferred from experience that is consistent with
> > other's experiences. That is why SOM is secondary to the MOQ. It is
> > contained within the MOQ.
>
>Couldn't agree more.
>
> > Where is the Quality?
> >
> > Is Quality in the subject or the object? Quality is all there is. To
> > experience is to select from the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum
> > called Quality. But it is not simply "whatever you like." What is
>labeled
> > "objective reality" by SOM is Quality that is experienced consistently
>from
> > person to person. What is called "subjective reality" in SOM is that
> > Quality which is not experienced uniformly from person to person.
>
>I would say "to experience" is to be at the front edge of the
>undifferentiated aesthetic continuum. "To select" is to divide, the leading
>edge of intellect which follows primary experience.
>
> > This "subjective reality" is not simply created by the subject, though
>the
> > subject participates in its creation. The subject's selection from the
> > aesthetic continuum is based on previously collected analogues. Anyone
> > with the same previous experience would experience Quality in the same
>way.
>
>Interpreting primary experiences is colored by individual life histories.
>
> > Quality creates subjects and objects
> >
> > Every subjects responds to the world based on the quality that it is
>aware
> > of. The object of experience is inferred from the Quality experienced.
> > The subject was, too. Experience is experience of Quality.
>Consciousness
> > is defined by experience. Without something to be conscious of, there
>is
> > no consciousness. Thus consciousness is created by Quality. That is
>why
> > Pirsig says, subjects and objects are deduced from Quality.
>
>This is confusing to me. I equate consciousness as experience, not a
>derivative of experience.
>
> > Free Will
> >
> > Are we with our sense of free will like water believing that it wills
> > itself to go down stream? If we could ask it, it would probably say
>that
> > it prefers to do that. Sitting in a pond it thinks, I could bubble and
> > flow and evaporate or rain down or even snow if I wanted to, but right
>now
> > I'm content to just be at peace.
> >
> > So free will is just an illusion? No. Free will is part of the view
>from
> > within. Determinism is what things look like from outside. But the
> > internal view is primary, the external one is the one that is
>derivative,
> > thus the MOQ supports free will while SOM is stuck in determinism.
>
>Totally agree.
>
> > Why does the ball fall to the ground when I let it go? The only way to
> > know is to ask the ball. Motivation is always internal to awareness.
>We
> > see what happens to dropped objects and infer a causal law. But this
> > determinism is the *external* description, not the view from within.
>Only
> > the ball as subject knows why it did what it did. "Whys" only apply to
> > internals not externals.
>
>Yes.
>
> > From the outside we perceive A causes B. From B's point of view, B
>values
> > precondition A.
> >
> > I've always hated when someone thinks that they know why I did what I
>did.
> > Why? Now I know. Because they were objectifying me. They were denying
>my
> > agency. I did what I did because I chose to do it--as the sun chooses
>to
> > rise each day and as the earth chooses to revolve around the sun.
>
>Right on.
>
> > Degenerate Metaphysics
> >
> > Pirsig first realized that Experience is Value. Further equating
> > Experience with Reality, the Metaphysics of Quality is complete.
> >
> > Pirsig then thought about looking at values externally and to classify
>them
> > resulting in the MOQ as presented in Lila. This "objective" view is
> > derivative. It is only a mental construction. It is itself a value.
>The
> > MOQ assumes the possibility of an external view of Quality (reality)
>that
> > Pirsig's original Quality insight says does not exist. That is why
> > creating it was a degenerate activity. In applying the MOQ, we are only
> > looking at Value from the outside. (How could we understand values from
> > outside? Then why did he do it? For the same reason we do anything,
> > because doing so seems to have more quality than not.)
>
>Yes.
>
> > MOQ Levels
> >
> > From the inside, there is free will to do what one recognizes to be the
> > highest quality action. From the outside, values look more like
>forces.
> > From the outside, things and animals and people seem forced to do what
>they
> > do.
> >
> > Inorganic values are the forces that hold substances together (e.g.
> > gravity) Biological values are the forces that hold a living being
>together
> > (e.g. photosynthesis) Social values are the forces that hold a society
> > together (e.g. laws) Intellectual values are the forces that hold ideas
> > together (e.g. logic)
> >
> > These are the types of values that are experienced. By objectifying
>them
> > we can see an evolutionary hierarchy at work.
> >
> > In addition there is dynamic Quality towards which values evolve. It is
> > also the ground of experience that creates and sustains all patterns of
> > value.
>
>Yes. Often overlooked are the moral forces at the different levels that
>constantly battle one another for supremacy. The inorganic value forces
>that we, from the outside, call tornadoes won the battle against
>biological forces in the mid-West recently.
>
>Steve, our interpretations of the MoQ are remarkably alike. While
>Pirsig's first split of Quality was Dynamic/static, I have no problem in
>using your split of Inside/Outside (or SOM) to highlight the key insights
>of the MoQ. Personally, I find a Primary/Secondary split to be more
>useful, but there you go--an example of a value difference influenced by
>personal life history.
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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 : Thu May 08 2003 - 19:54:53 BST