Hi David B., Walter, Struan, Bo, Roger, Horse and all interested in the current
thread,
First of all, a big welcome to Geoff - you've made a great start. When I first
read ZAMM some 24 years ago, I was only about 18 - not much older than you. I
still enjoy rereading it and finding new things. Like many other people, I think
that ZAMM is by far the better of Pirsig's two novels even though Pirsig himself
considers Lila to be more important. I would strongly urge anyone in this
discussion to read or re-read ZAMM immediately if they haven't done so in the
last 2 years! Also, I recommend a trip down memory lane to the archives - there
were some great discussions and posts that really don't deserve to be
overlooked.
Now, to the current discussion -
snipped from DAVID B:
> Right, inorganic patterns also have experience,
> but that's only part of the explanation. And it does depend on the
> presupposition that static patterns actually exists. I think this is another
> case of barking up the wrong tree. Pirsig doesn't deny the existence of
> rocks and trees, history or humanity. He just has different ideas about the
> nature of matter, life and our evolution. Seems like too many have either
> denied existence of "mind" or "matter" in an effort to get out from under
> SOM, but that's just not valid. Data are data and parts is parts. None of it
> has disappeared because of Pirsig. People and stoves don't just magically
> and suddenly pop into existence at the moment of experience either.
David, I'm so pleased to see that we agree on this. I just spent a long time
going through the archive looking for something, and found a post from 27th June
1998 (archive address http://www.moq.org/old_lilasquad/9806/0063.html ) where
Horse severely attacked me for expressing a view very similar to the one you
have just presented.
It so happens that my reply to him
http://www.moq.org/old_lilasquad/9806/0065.html ) was very relevant to this
thread. What I was trying to say was that there is no absolute delineation
between subject and object, observer and observed. The same "experiences" can be
divided in many different ways.
I quote:
[Horse to Jonathan (27 June 1998)]:-
>Chlorophyll is not an
>observer of anything in any accepted sense. If you have a special
meaning in
>mind then it should be explained. As it is this is pretty much an S-O
statement
>within an S-O framework. A photon may be observed with the use of
specially
>designed equipment, as can the interaction of photon and chlorophyll.
[Jonathan to Horse (27 June 1998)]:
<<<Hold on there! Chlorophyll IS special equipment.
Consider the professor sitting in his office writing about his student's
experimental results. The whole perception pathway goes from event >
detector > amplifier/filter > recorder > computer processing > student >
professor.
Where's the observer in all that. Is the professor the observer and
everything before the observed? But the student is also an intelligent
observer and the computer is making "intelligent decisions" based on the
preloaded programs, and even the amplifier/filter has "hard-wired"
discrimination (value judgement?) built in. [snip] >>>
I could have extended the above to include the editor who handles the
professor's manuscript and then the readers who read the article. Who is the
"real" observer?
Nuff said about that!
However, I was a bit bothered by that last sentence in the paragraph I quoted
above:
DAVID B.
> People and stoves don't just magically
> and suddenly pop into existence at the moment of experience either.
Surely the "existence" of people and stoves is extrapolated from the primary
experience.
Without the experience, people and stoves might as well not exist.
Surely we don't have to argue this point yet again - especially not you David!
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:41 BST