Hi Wim,
You wrote: ">
> Pirsig tried to show that (1st person) perception (or broader: experience)
> IS Quality, "
The point is that no map is equal to the territory. Any and all maps are
never 100% equivalent to the territory. Maps are always less than the
territory. [The territory is Quality.] Hence Pirisg's books can not be
Quality! Quality is non-verbal, pre-verbal and beyond verbal. All our
thoughts and writings are words, are maps. No amount of words or any symbol
system can ever be the equivalent of something that is not words. Maps/word
never are the exact equivalent of Quality. Maps/words are useful if they
have a STRUCTURE SIMILAR to the territory! The Structure is the key!
Pirsig's map is useful and valid because it outlines a structure that is
similar to that found in Quality. But Pirsig's maps are not the only valid
map of Quality/Reality. There are many others. That is the nature of maps.
They are only a finite thing trying to encompass an infinite.
Platt pointed out Pirsig's restaurant analogy. It is so perfect a way to
understand maps & territories.
maps always = menus
territory always = food.
Thus, Pirsig wrote a menu. He describes the food but it is not itself the
food.
Thus maps never equal territory, because menus do not equal food.
The MOQ is a menu and not the food!
We eat the food and not the menu. We experience Quality, we do not
experience the menu.
Now you could ask about how the food is prepared and I would give you a cook
book. You want more information about cooking, I'll give you a chemistry
book. How did the food get to the restaurant? Micro & macro economic
books. All inquires about the food will result in more books. Words in
books and menus on one side the food on the other. maps & territories. All
human thinking results in stuff that ain't food.
As for the rest of your comments, I'll come back to them another day.
Keeping his eye on the menu makers,
Gary
> Gary wrote 31/8 9:16 -0700:
> 'From the perspective of how we humans perceive reality, the 1st person
> limited perspective, the first cut is map/territory, which is the same as
> Internal/External and the same as Subject [the perceiver]/Object [the
> perceived]. This perspective is not ... the perspective of MOQ. Pirsig is
> attempting to make a map from a 3rd person omniscient vantage point.'
>
> Pirsig tried to show that (1st person) perception (or broader: experience)
> IS Quality, that the first cut we make IS static/dynamic (or patterns and
> unpatterned experience) and that the map/territory, internal/external and
> subject/object cuts are only secondary cuts in static quality (the
patterned
> part of our experience).
> Jumping from a hot stove does not require a 3rd person omniscient vantage
> point...
> Obviously 'Lila' was not enough to make this clear to you.
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:29 BST