From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 13:57:46 BST
Hi Johnny,
> >We don't need SOM any more. The world is a world of concepts--patterns of
> >Quality. Patterns only exist as mental abstractions.
> So you believe that pre-human history is only a backwards projection of
> what must have been? I agree, that's my Creation Theory also, that the
> world is created with all its history as it seems to have been, every
> moment. But my human sanity compells me to also believe that that the past
> really happened, and that the present and future are dependent on it. So I
> believe that early molecules formed in the primordial soup, etc, long
> before any minds evolved to be aware of them, even though I understand
> philosphically that it only happened abstractedly. And I believe that my
> car will be damaged if I drive it into a tree, even if I don't see the
> tree. And that I can't just take someone else's property and tell them to
> imagine I didn't, it was only a mental abstraction anyhow. The world that
> is is a world of concepts is an Object - it is a world that objectively
> exists. For you, me and everyone, Bush is really the President of the US.
> Yes it is a pattern of Quality, but experience isn't felt by experience
> itself, experience is felt by subjects. Subjects and Objects are the Son,
> the Created world, and Quality is the Father, but the Father needed the Son
> to experience itself, to exist.
>
> Maybe I'm not sure what we mean by SOM here, I think of it as believing
> that things really exist, that I exist, etc. As I'm sure you dont dispute
> that, there must be some narrower definition that you are using.
Well, I do make a distinction between words (concepts) and things. I try
to keep in mind the independence of symbols from the things symbolized,
the map from the territory, the menu from the meal. The words "existence,"
"object," "subject," and "pattern of value" point to experience, but names
for what we experience are not the experiences themselves. But here's the
key: the names we use to describe experience have their origins in our
metaphysics, the beliefs we hold about what our experiences mean. If we
believe experiences stem from subjects who experience independent objects
outside our skins, then for us that's reality. On the other hand, if we
believe our experiences stem from patterns of value who experience Dynamic
Quality and other patterns of value, then for us that's reality. Either
way, experiences are the same. Only the metaphysics, the meanings and the
words change. Pirsig put it this way:
"Strike out the word "substance" wherever it appears and substitute the
expression "stable inorganic pattern of value." Again the difference is
linguistic. It doesn't make a whit of difference in the laboratory which
term is used. No dials change their readings. The observed laboratory data
are exactly the same."
> >What is the benefit
> >of hanging onto the symbols of "subjects" and "objects" instead of
> >"patterns of Quality?" I guess the main benefit is to think like everybody
> >else and so get along without making waves..
>
> That's the main benefit, sure, to not be insane, to please people. To
> value things appropriately. There are lots of mental hospitals with wards
> for people who have taken idealism to debilitating solipsistic conclusions
> and denied our shared reality, SOM.
True. But those who buy the MoQ and those who follow SOM share the same
reality. Both see a bear as potentially harmful. The only difference is
the MoQ guy sees a biological pattern of value and the SOM guys sees an
large hairy object with big teeth and bad breath. To both, being
threatened by a bear is a low quality experience, for sure.
> > Dynamic Quality creates patterns of value, not subjects and objects.
> But you just said that the patterns are mental abstractions. That implies
> a mind, a subject. Yes, that mind is itself a pattern of quality, created
> by morality, which is the original source, but we don't live in that
> original source, we live in differentiated patterns of quality.
Yes. Those who buy the MoQ believe we live in different patterns of
quality, not subjects and objects. As for the original source, it's still
active.
> >So yes, the MoQ accounts for SOM, but replaces it with better
> >explanation of the how the world is and works.
> It augments it, it doesn't replace it. It explains the relationship of
> morality to existence, but doesn't throw out existence. I don't understand
> what you feel is gained by throwing out SOM, and, can I have your stuff
> when you do?
What I gain by throwing out SOM is a better explanation of experience. In
the MoQ, experience, existence and morality are all synonyms for the ocean
of awareness we swim in, trying to catch the beneficial currents and
avoiding the rip tides.
> >If you want to stick to SOM, fine. My preference is MoQ. Probably strokes
> >my ego to be different that way.
> I'm not "sticking to SOM", I am adding an understanding of quality and
> morality as the source of reality, while still living life in a real world
> containing people and things that really exist, as real as rocks and trees.
> I'm sure you are too.
Yes, and I hope I've made it clear that the "real world" can be named
things like rocks and trees, or patterns of inorganic and biological
value. The names change, but the observed data remain exactly the same.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 06 2003 - 14:01:04 BST