Gary and all,
This seems to have become a 'tis/'taint argument, so let me try a
different tack.
In my opinion, you are denying the MOQ. Specifically, Pirsig adopts as
the primary distinction that into DQ and sq. He then categorizes sq into
four levels, inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual, each level
developing out of the previous, thanks to DQ. Note that there is no
division into internal and external reality. He then says that what we
commonly call subjective can be identified as the social and
intellectual levels, and objective the other two. Again, no division
into internal and external reality. just a definition of two words. In
traditional terms, no mind/matter division.
Now you, on the other hand, say we need to divide
things/events/processes into internal versus external. Say we do so.
You see a bird land on a tree. To you this is two events, the bird
landing in the tree, and your seeing the bird land in a tree. Well, now
you've described the event in SOM terms. And so, I ask you:
1. How do you know there is really an external event, and not that you
are simply imagining it (a la Descartes' demon)?
2. Suppose there really is the external event and the internal event.
Now we know (based on scientific study of external events) that the
information of the external event passed into you via photons, which
excited cells in your retina, etc., but you do not perceive photons or
nerve excitations, rather you see a bird landing on a tree. So what can
we say about the external event in itself, versus what we have produced
"in our mind"? Kant says nothing at all. So why bother with the external
event at all (or why is Kant wrong)?
3. Or do you maintain, like Ryle and Dennett, that "mind" is not really
real, just a word we use to group together a set of patterns that are
really just external events happening in our brain. If so, how do you
explain the feeling that you seem to exist as something that is NOT
external?
In other words, how do you avoid the platypi that the SOM engenders?
Now I should confess that I don't think the MOQ as delineated in LILA
has completely eliminated the mind/matter platypus (but since it is
primarily an inquiry into morals, that is excusable). However, I would
agree that the DQ/sq split is a step in the right direction, while
resurrecting the subject/object split as a metaphysical founding
principle is a mistake.
- Scott
Gary Jaron wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> You responded to me before I got to respond to you.
>
> Anyway...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott R <jse885@spinn.net>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 1:53 AM
> Subject: Re: MD Consciousness
>
>
>
>>Gary,
>>
>>I think you're making a couple of foundational mistakes here. First,
>>expecially on the lower levels, you are classifying by the supposed
>>mechanism of the sensation, rather than the content of the sensation.
>>The fact (which we have through the intellectual work of physiologists)
>>that tastes and smells arise through molecules tickling nerve cell
>>endings has nothing to do with whether what we taste is inorganic, or
>>biological. That is, we should be classifying according to content, not
>>to how we arrived at the content. We never experience photons or
>>variations in air compression. We seldom experience light or sound. We
>>mostly experience trees, walls, pictures, birds singing, etc.
>>
>>Second, you seem to be saying because an experience is individual, then
>>it belongs in the 4th category. By this logic, since all experiences are
>>individual (the only exception I can think of would be telepathy), then
>>everything belongs to the fourth level. This would be solipsism, I
>>guess. It's certainly not the MOQ. Again, I think you are making a
>>mistake by thinking that feelings and thoughts can be considered as
>>static patterns all by themselves, ignoring that feelings and thoughts
>>(and sensations) are always feelings of X and thoughts of Y.
>>
>>In sum, your mistake is to ask "in what category are the different types
>>of mental events". Instead, I think one should classify by what prompts
>>the events. So a feeling is, for example, a feeling of anger at someone,
>>and so that one is social, whether that someone is in my face at the
>>moment or I am reviewing a social interaction much later. A feeling of
>>hunger is biological. A feeling of satisfaction at solving a
>>mathematical puzzle is intellectual.
>>
>
> GARY'S RESONSE: You are right in saying that I classify "Second, you seem to
> be saying because an experience is individual, then it belongs in the 4th
> category."
> This is my position. All Thinking, all mental experiences is 4th level
> stuff. I am saying that any and all mental events and processess at some
> point become not the mechanics of the process which are biological and
> inorganic under that. Thinking is a step above biology and physics.
> Thiking is done by individuals. It has to be recognized as such and put
> somewhere and the only place that Pirsig gives us is Q-Intellect. Hence all
> thinking is Q-Intellect.
>
> As for "), then everything belongs to the fourth level. This would be
> solipsism," No, I clearly recognize that there exists an Internal Reality
> [which is our mind and the experinces of perception] and External Reality
> [All that is not in my 'head'.] Every thought is a human individual
> thought. Q-Intellect is where Pirsig put all mentual stuff. Everything
> non-mental is found outside of a human mind and hence to be found amongst
> the other 3 levels. All of the other levels help create and affect the
> mind/4th level. But all thoughts are found in the mind/Q-Intellect.
>
> Feelings are individual they can and do have Social and Biological causes.
> A feeling is my experience of the workings of my body caused by, in some
> cases, a interaction with another person, hence a Social interaction. My
> experience is personal, internal to me, not experienced by anyone else and
> thus has to be found in a place on Pirsig's chart that represents the
> individual and not the collective. Q-Intellect is the only place.
>
> Now, If you were to ask me how to chart out reality I would not have made
> the MOQ with its only 4 levels. I find this map overly simplistic for
> things outside of Ethics and morality. Hense my designation of Pirsig 4
> level map as E-MOQ . Ethical perspective of a map of Quality.
>
> My essay's have my ideas of mapping reality.
>
> I do want to get to S/O Thinking, the S/O divide, and Mystics revelation of
> going beyond that divide. But all this ground work needs to be done first.
> We need to have our terms understood as best we can before we move on.
>
> As for: when you start off with: ,"I think you're making a couple of
> foundational mistakes here. First,
> expecially on the lower levels, you are classifying by the supposed
> mechanism of the sensation, rather than the content of the sensation.
> The fact (which we have through the intellectual work of physiologists)
> that tastes and smells arise through molecules tickling nerve cell
> endings has nothing to do with whether what we taste is inorganic, or
> biological. That is, we should be classifying according to content, not
> to how we arrived at the content. We never experience photons or
> variations in air compression. We seldom experience light or sound. We
> mostly experience trees, walls, pictures, birds singing, etc"
>
> GARY'S RESPONSE: I do not believe I am making a mistake by separating "how
> we arrive at content" from "content'. Clarity arises when we do this. And
> Pirsig's 4 levels require it. Pirsig did not just give us SOCIAL and
> INTELLECT. He also gave us the other two. The other two is where the
> mechanics lies, at least when you are examining a human being. We are a
> Dynamic Stable Pattern of many levels. Inorganic, Organic, and Intellect.
> The Social level is found in the Q-Intellect level, when we are considering
> a single human. We have been socialized and thus have internalized our
> culture. Hence the SOCIAL Level has become part of the mental stuff we
> utilized in our thinking. The SOCIAL, The Organic and the Inorganic are all
> the stuff of External Reality that we, a single human encounter. By
> classifying by content and the mechanisms of how we arrive at the content I
> am forcing us to be clear in our statements. The mechanisms of our senses
> is Inorganic and Organic. What we experience as tasting : good, bad,
> bitter, sweet, like an apple, etc. all of that is our experience of
> understanding and processing that sense data. It is Thinking! Low level
> thinking, but thinking none the less. I have no problem with saying
> everything we experience is in our mind/Q-Intellect. I avoid solipsism by
> clearly stating that everything is not only mind but also there exists
> External Reality which is matter/energy outside of my experience of reality.
> The experience of reality is my personal individual Internal Reality. You
> have your own individual and personal experience of reality, your own
> Internal Reality/Q-Intellect.
>
> You claimed that what I am doing is "It's certainly not the MOQ. " Actually
> I am being utterly Orthodox Pirsig!!! He said in Lila everything can be
> classified by his 4 levels! Everything! I am being utterly and accurately
> MOQ when I go about saying that this thing is level 1 and this thing is
> level 2, etc. This is the rules as laid out by Pirsig. This is part of
> what the MOQ is all about.
>
> Seeking clarity,
> 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 - 16:02:29 BST