From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 12:41:22 GMT
Steve and Nathan.
Steve, you once said that I courted DMB, I still like his style, but I
"love" you too ;-) One of your posts back in April this year was the
reason that I returned. My returning was of no import and my
reputation has waned, but Pirsig's ideas are important and in spite of
our meanderings we make progress.
Beside physical age, I have been with this discussion from the start
and feel like Methuselah and have long since stopped welcoming
new-comers or advicing them. Therefore I am glad you have the good
sense to give crash-courses in the MOQ as it appeared in ZMM and
its full-fledged version in LILA. This is no sarcasm if you are unsure of
this sudden embrace ...a few comments however.
On 9 Nov. you wrote to Nathan who had written:
> > There is a school of thought that says that consciousness is an
> > emergent property in the same way wetness is an emergent property.
> > The atoms that form a molecule of water are not wet nor is the
> > molecule of water wet, but put enough of these water molecules
> > together and you get wetness. In that way, consciousness 'comes
> > from' the maelstrom of activity from various parts of the brain.
> (There is a discussion going on between Scott and Platt and perhaps
> some others about self-consciousness which I haven't really been
> following. Perhaps it would be worth reading back in the archives.)
> My thoughts on the subject are half-baked, but I'll give you my
> two-sense as I think out loud.
> I think of consciousness and awareness as the same thing. To me
> self-consciousness is a type of awareness. I don't think there is a
> great mystery to be explained once you make accept Pirsig's postulate
> that reality is value. I think that awareness is another way of
> thinking about Quality. You asked for synonyms for Quality other than
> "expectation" (which I don't like). Well, I consider both 'awareness'
> and 'experience' to be useful in this way.
I see 'consciousness', 'awareness' and 'self-consciousness's loaded to
the plimsoll mark by SOM, but I would certainly like if we could make
the MOQ mark on them that you suggest: Self-consciousness a type
of awareness, static intellectual awareness, and so on down the static
levels but .....
..they are loaded and will forever carry the SOM charge of "mind-out-
of-matter". A MOQ variety totally different from all this must be worked
out and is why I like Jaynes bi-cameral theory (applied to the MOQ)
In it there is no mind-entering-matter, only language turning internal.
What before (in social reality) had been experienced as VOICES (in
their heads as Jaynes says) became THOUGHTS. The impression of
a SELF thinking these thoughts followed by necessity thus the mind-
quality dissolves ...from the intellectual level.
> When I say 'everything is Quality' I'm saying that everything is
> awareness and everything is aware. As for awareness as an emergent
> property, I think that awareness is fundamental to existence and
> emergent as "awarenesses" conceived as molecules combine to form a new
> awareness, an organism that is aware of (in other words, experiences
> value)-- things like hunger or a sex drive that molecules are not
> aware of but also isn't aware of the forces (value experiences) that
> effect molecules.
Yes, everything is awareness, and/or everything is 'thinking' and
everything is selected by a sense of BEAUTY, in an INTUITIVE
process. On and on we may spin "everything is" threads and even
construct new metaphysics (identical to the MOQ) around them. But
Pirsig picked QUALITY as the mother of them all and that is BEST
and will do!
> As for the 'maelstrom of activity from various parts of the brain' I
> think it's important to consider that though thoughts and emotions
> have physical correlates that can be measured and studied
> scientifically, the measurements are not to be *equated* with the
> thoughts and emotions.
You are right, in the SOM (or intellect in my book!) a psycho-physical
parallelism exist. But Quality is a view beyond intellect from where the
various static levels - intellect included - are seen as expressing
themselves through various means: Biology through senses, society
through emotions and intellect through reason ..IMO.
> Though scientists may release a new finding
> that they've located a chemical or part of the brain associated with
> feelings of empathy, it doesn't mean that empathy does not exist.
> Scientists will never find a thought while dissecting a brain.
Agree!
> Thoughts are the experience of being a brain which can't be known from
> outside a brain.
Er ...well in the above context OK.
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 -
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 10 2003 - 12:46:27 GMT