From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Fri Aug 05 2005 - 04:00:58 BST
David M,
Scott prev: You say "DQ helps us to explain the coming into being of SQ"
DM: That is confusing. What I want to say is that my scheme helps
us to understand what we mean by DQ. Given my scheme where the
I-realm represents all possible SQ, we can see DQ as the 'activity' that
allows SQ to pass from one realm and into another. <skip>
Scott:
This makes sense. I would interject one thing, which makes my view different
from the MOQ. That is that what makes the i-realm different from the p-realm
is that in the i-realm DQ is directly observable, while (in our current
state of consciousness) it has to be inferred in the p-realm. In other
words, we are, as individuals, DQ as well as SQ.
Scott prev:
At a crucial point, you become unclear. You've defined the p-realm and the
i-realm, and then you say: "One we share with others directly, the other
is shared only indirectly."
DM:
I mean that we share the perceptual-realm in the sense that we can point
or touch the same SQ patterns or objects in this realm. The individual-realm
is not shared in the sense that I can imagine a table and you can't see it.
Of
course we communicate one i-realm to another via the p-realm, so we can
talk and express what is in our i-realm via sounds that exist and can be
shared
in the p-realm. Our ability to transfer i-realm thought to each other via
the p-realm
is quite something and shows that our i-realms have a lot in common. To
clarify
there are many i-realms, one w-realm, one I-realm, as for the p-realm each
i-realm
has a different perspective so that there are many p-realms, but we share
parts of our p-realms too.
<skip>
Scott:
Well, I see this as needing more work. As I see it, what you say concedes
too much to naive realism. My objection to saying that the p-realm is shared
is that the describable (sharable) aspects of the p-realm (the qualities)
are created by the observer. Hence what is shared is not independent of the
i-realm, as objectivism would have us believe.
Scott prev: more precisely, the i-realm is shared through one
mediation (my talking to you), while the p-realm contains two mediations
(my turning perception into a description, and then relating that to you).
There is no direct sharing of the p-realm (which in my view knocks the
ground
out from any sort of materialist-based empiricism.)
DM: <skip>
Yes the p-realm is flux prior to there being patterns in the i-realm to cut
the p-realm up with.
Scott:
Why do you claim this?
DM: I agree here with Pirsig that these patterns begin when i-realms respond
to
the w-realm
in terms of positive/negative value/quality.
Scott:
And I disagree. Here I would say you are conceding too much to the
nominalist.
Scott prev: Lastly, aren't you contradicting yourself, by at one point
saying:
"The
p-realm is just a flux until we cut it up as Pirsig says. The patterns we
use to cut up the p-realm are contained in the i-realm." and then at
another point saying "In the beginning there was only SQ in the I-realm.
Then DQ
pours it into the w-realm. Some how the p-realm gets going so that SQ in
the w-realm starts to perceive the separateness/differentiation of SQ in the
w-realm. Such perception is all about the interaction of SQ in the
p-realm." It seems to me that in the second quote you are saying that all is
NOT
flux in the absence of our "cutting it up". And so it does make sense that
our
i-realm activity with respect to the p-realm is not arbitrary, as the MOQ
would have it. Rather (and this is what I think), our i-realm activity is
working to align itself with the i-realm activity that we call the
perceived world.
DM: Interesting. I see the I-realm as able to exist on it own and first as
a One. Yes, then it must create the w-realm (a many) as a finite cosmos, a
subset
of the I-realm. Then the SQs in the w-realm begin to interact. This
interaction draws
new SQ from the I-realm into the w-realm.This chosing may take place at the
intersection of the I and w-realms but at some point we can start to talk
about
i-realms, realms of possibility that are connected to just a part of the
w-realm.
An i-realm seems to be a particular/individual/unique intersection with the
w-realm. This intersection creates a unique p-realm. But other
individual/particular
i-realms overlap to create very similar p-realms. In other words as
individuals we
encounter the same world as others and can create a common understanding
of the w-world via culture and the creation of a commonly interpreted
p-world.
Without this interpretation the p-world remains flux but the ability of
individuals
to create/share the same i-realm SQ makes the construction of a common and
inteliigible p-realm possible. Of course there is much trouble in the fact
of the
different perspective each i-realm has on the w-realm. Each i-realm will
have a partially unique/partiallycommon p-realm.
Of course from another perspective all the many i-realms added together
may re-construct what is the original and One of the I-realm. We can tell
the
story of the w-realm from the perspective of the I-realm or from the other
direction i.e. from the cultural products of the i-realms.
Does that help?
Scott:
No, because you seem to be saying there is no pattern without an i-realm,
but SQ is pattern. Hence there would be no SQ without an i-realm, but you
are clearly saying that SQ is in the I- and w-realms prior to there being
i-realms. That is what I assume you mean by 'flux' anyway: patternlessness.
So maybe this should be cleared up first.
- Scott
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 Aug 05 2005 - 04:07:55 BST