Hi Platt and all,
Thanks Platt, for reading my essay. I'll respond to your questions below.
----- Original Message -----
From: Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: MD Consciousness
> Hi Gary:
>
> > Gary's response: Absolutely. The mind should not be considered as
> > something radically different than the body. The mind arises out of the
> > body processes. The mind is the awareness of the bodies activities.
> > Quality is that which gives both their structure, their existence.
Hence
> > no Cartesian, Subject vs. Object problem.
>
> I take it then that your answer to the question, "What's the mind in?"
> would be "In the human body." Is that correct? If so, the next question
> naturally would be, "What's the body in?"
Gary's answer: The body is not "in" anything, unless you want to consider
the universe is a continuum of all prevasive matter & energy which is
configured in stable patterns of quality. Then I'ld say that the body is
"in" that field of matter & energy, like all of existence.
>
> I enjoyed your essay in the Forum. But for me it pretty much boiled
> down to scientific materialism (all is matter and energy) with God
> (Quality) accounting for the mysteries that science has failed to explain
> such as organization, complexity, evolution and the laws of physics. I
> didn't see you acknowledge Pirsig's thesis that the world is a moral
> order which does indeed make "his map" new. In fact, there was very
> little, if anything in your essay about morals which is what the MOQ is
> all about. I wonder why?
>
> Platt
Gary's response: Pirsig did raise a remarkable new idea with his map
making in Lila. Making Morality a part of everything. I didn't address
this idea because I was starting at the beginning building a foundation.
Thus, I went and re-read Zen and the Art and laid the ground work of my map
on the basis of Pirsig's map. Only briefly get into Lila at the end of my
essay. I guess you could characterize my essay as "scientific materialism
with God accounting for the mysteries that science has failed to
explain...." But, that reduce my map into the lowest common denominator.
Never felt that this was a very good idea. The point is not in what is
shared in common, but what is the differences! Reduction down gets you into
"scientific materialism" is a part of Western Cultural heritage and my map
is a part of that heritage. Yes, but so what. Reducing down to common
similarities takes away from the significance, the quality. Pirsig can be
reduced down to a map discussing the mind-body problem. But this distorts
the significance of Pirsig's work and hides the difference and the newness
that Pirsig brings. Pirsig answered the mind-body problem by saying that it
was a mistake to focus on that separation at the start of one's metaphysical
map making. Start with Quality and then work your way to minds and bodies.
My map is not merely "scientific materialism". It is, using Pirsig, a whole
new map. My map and Pirsig replaces "scientific materialism". Generally
in my experience boiling down anything results in very bland food. I tend
not to cook that way.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Gary
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:24 BST