From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 - 15:19:03 BST
Hi Johnny, Ham, Paul, All
First, thanks for following through on our discussion. By doing so you and
I have arrived at the crux of the issue which you expressed so well when
you wrote, "Who is experiencing this experience?" followed later by:
> Again, we were using 'existence' differently. Do you think we can agree
> about that now?
It appears many of us are still wrestling with Pirsig's idea that
fundamental reality=Quality=experience--an idea he claims comes prior to
the dualities of subject/object, I/other, and ideas/substance.
The problem seems to arise from words like "reality," "existence,"
"experience," "consciousness," "observation" and the like, all of which,
in common everyday usage, imply the presence of a human being--including
the person using those words. Thus, one easily arrives at the Idealist
position that without a human being to witness the world, the world
wouldn't exist, or in the present tense, that which is not directly
observed exists only in one's imagination.
To further confuse (me at least) is the following from Pirsig:
"I see today more clearly than when I wrote the SODV paper that the key to
integrating the MOQ with science is through philosophic idealism, which
says that objects grow out of ideas, not the other way around. Since at
the most primary level the observed and the observer are both intellectual
assumptions, the paradoxes of quantum theory have to be conflicts of
intellectual assumption, not just conflicts of what is observed. Except
in the case of Dynamic Quality, what is observed always involves an
interaction with ideas that have been previously assumed. So the problem
is not, "How can observed nature be so screwy?" but can also be, "What is
wrong with our most primitive assumptions that our set of ideas called
"nature" are turning out to be this screwy?" (LS, 102)
It's precisely the "interaction with ideas that have previously been
assumed" that is the crux of the matter. "Experience" assumes an
"experiencer" and thus a duality is spontaneously and concurrently created
with the use of the word even though Pirsig denies it.
Well, "screwy" is a good way to describe the conundrum I find myself
struggling to break free of. I sense that you, Johnny, also feel
frustrated when you wrote: "Trying to talk about this stuff just opens
your rear end for kicking."
So again, thanks Johnny for laying out the case for questioning Pirsig's
initial premise. Unless we can all come to some agreement on this issue, I
doubt if the MOQ will gain much traction among the populace at large even
though I think the MOQ is a wonderful explanation of the "reality" I
experience.
Best,
Platt
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 : Sat Aug 14 2004 - 15:16:02 BST