From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Aug 28 2004 - 14:36:05 BST
dm-see brackets {}
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: MD The empirical verifiability of value
>
> Ham Priday to Paul Turner, Platt Holden, Mark Steven Heyman, Scott Roberts
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:50 PM
> Subject: Re: MD The empirical verifiability of value
>
>
> Greetings to my favorite tattoo enthusiasts!
>
> Paul writes to Ham:
> > As far as Pirsig is concerned, there is no "leap" involved in believing
> > that quality is real and verifiable. If you think quality isn't real,
then
> > you are saying that it is better to believe that than it is to believe
> that
> > it is real. The MOQ axiom of "some things are better than others" cannot
> be
> > denied without contradiction.
> > The leap occurs in believing that quality is Quality i.e. that it *is*
> > reality.
>
> That analysis is not worthy of your fine intellect, Paul. The "leap" is
not
> believing that Quality is "verifiably real". The leap is realizing that
> reality is essentially "subjective" or immanent. I was struck, as Mark
was,
> by Scott Roberts' musing in a related thread on MOQ and Logic/Science:
>
> > scott:
> > What about the mystery of consciousness? Unless someone can show me
> > how one set of electrons and quarks can be aware of another set --
> > not just flip a switch to indicate a yes or no answer to the
> > existence of some pattern or other, but to experience the conscious
> > phenomenon of seeing that pattern in all its four-dimensional glory --
> > then there is a mystery, as long, that is, as one assumes that
> > consciousness is derived from the nonconscious.
>
> The prose is beautiful, almost musical. But what caught my attention was
> the last line: "there is a mystery, as long as one assumes that
> consciousness is derived from the nonconscious". My question is, why must
> we make this assumption?
>
> We make it because everything we experience is viewed as an "otherness" to
> ourselves
{this is not how consciousness begins, prior to SOM mankind saw his
experienced-world
as full of spirit and saw himself usually as a animal spirit like a
wolf, -participation mystique,
otherness of gods & spirits -clearly projected from within therefore not
other becomes
objects only via SOM & also subjectivity emerges from this bipolar
development
of SOM, this is not really so hard to follow}
. We are brainwashed to this proposition from the day we start
> learning about reality.
{in patriarchal SOM only, repressing the chaotic-creative forces/powers)
Science, which is the imprimatur of verifiable
> knowledge, is based on this philosophy. Read Heidegger, Husserl, Sartre,
> Rand, North, Whitehead -- they're all telling us this because they're
> existentialists.
{you seem to be unaware of the diff between Sartre's dualism & Heidegger's
holism!)
Thought itself is believed to be an electro-neural process
> in the brain that evolved in nature. Man strives to "extend" this
evolution
> by constructing a machine with the sensibility to react to objective data
as
> the conscious mind does. All is otherness. To see reality in any other
way
> is intellectual heresy -- or just plain foolishness.
{it is what the MOQ does see & some of us see what you do not it seems}
>
> But consider for a moment what this belief system implies. If everything
> that is real is an "objective other", what does that say about our
> "subjective awareness" of it? That it is unreal? That it is an illusion
> of Nature? That it is excluded from participation in ultimate reality?
> The logic of that philosophy is unreasonable and untenable to me.
>
> I submit that some aspect of consciousness is at least as "real" as the
> objective world we perceive. Instead of accepting the notion that
> proprietary awareness is a disconnected product of material reality, I've
> turned this cosmology upside down.
{turn dualism upside down & it is still dualism}
My philosophy posits human sensibility
> (the "psychic" component of consciousness) as the "creative agent" of an
> all-encompassing reality rather than an incidental, passive effect. This
is
> not the empirical reality we "know", of course, and I discuss some
> teleological reasons why this must be so (the principle of autonomous
> freedom being one of them). But if man's reality is more than a
flickering
> reflection of its source, it must be grounded in the "essence" of the
> source. Is this any less logical than the existential perspective which
> presupposes "beingness'' as the ultimate reality?
{look, Pirsig's Q/DQ/SQ analysis of experience recognises the reality
of all experience, DQ's creativity & agency is obvious and recognised
within experience, it is also universal to all experience along with Q & SQ.
It is also conceptually un-entangable from values. So there is nothing about
your essence that Pirsig does not find in experience, if a quality is not
in experience what can we say about it? Is Q/DQ/SQ universal?
looks that way, Pirsig proposes how it works for all the levels.
I cannot see what your essence adds to this. It makes a claim to something
higher? Why higher? Why not just universal like Q/SQ/DQ?
Pirsig does not limit quality to human experience, as he asks how the levels
emerged prior to the human. What Pirsig offers has a power of explanation
that does not have the contradictions of dualism, materialism, idealism,
your essence tries to move out of reality to explain contradictions
that Pirsig has explained within reality-experience. Do you seek a reality
beyond experience? Does not god need to experience? Perhaps the
world of experience also makes god possible?}
>
> You can deny the Source. You can apply the label Quality to it and say
that
> Quality IS "it". (Alan Watts in his Zen-based thesis "The Supreme
Doctrine"
> said "You are It!") But you are still bound to a metaphysics of being
> (i.e., material reality).
{no materiality in MOQ only quality static patterns }
While the concept may not be new to Eastern
> mysticism, I believe that a concept of Essence whose Value is immanent to
> man represents a significant leap in contemporary Western philosophy.
>
{immanent value has no need of talk of higher! -come on Ham you must be
getting it by now}
> So I remain . . .
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
> >
> > 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
>
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 : Sat Aug 28 2004 - 15:48:06 BST