From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 19 2004 - 19:54:56 BST
Hi
Pretty good, somewhere between
contingency, tendency, preference, conscious choice
something more self conscious has emerged.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Roghair" <ctr@pacificpartssales.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: MD The individual in the MOQ
> Hello David, All:
>
> David asked:
>
> "Can someone explain to me how you can have
> a preference without being aware of the options
> that X is having a preference for?"
>
> I thought:
>
> In this context isn't "preference" another term for "tendency." Tendency
> based on an records and memories of an infinite number of previous "X's"
> paths and actions which came before? "X" is anything and everything from
> sub-atomic particles sorely lacking any real charm or personal style to
> people, arguably Mother Nature's coupe de grace and the epitomy of
> consciousness as we know it. Entities for which laws without exceptions
> simply don't exist.
>
> Am I getting warm?
>
> Best regards,
>
> C.
>
> A good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent upon arriving. A good
> artist lets his intuition lead him wherever it wants.
> -Lao Zi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]
> On Behalf Of David Morey
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 11:00 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD The individual in the MOQ
>
> Hi
>
> Can someone explain to me how you can have
> a preference without being aware of the options
> that X is having a preference for?
>
> regards
> David M
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10:52 PM
> Subject: RE: MD The individual in the MOQ
>
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > > Platt said:
> > > I've looked through LILA and can't find where Pirsig made it clear
that
> > > "perception" as used in the MOQ means something different than its
> everyday
> > > SOM meaning. Same goes for "experience" and "awareness."
> >
> > > Paul:
> > > As far as I am aware, a SOM sees neither that Quality is synonymous
with
> > > awareness, nor that this Quality awareness is the source of all
subjects
> > > and objects. Rather, a SOM sees a subject and/or an object as the
source
> of
> > > awareness. In terms of the texts, does this quote from ZMM answer your
> > > question?:
> > >
> > > "He simply meant that at the cutting edge of time, before an object
can
> be
> > > distinguished, there must be a kind of nonintellectual awareness,
which
> he
> > > called awareness of Quality...Since all intellectually identifiable
> things
> > > must emerge from this preintellectual reality, Quality is the parent,
> the
> > > source of all subjects and objects." [ZMM, p.247, Ch 20]
> >
> > Not really. The question still hanging out there is, "Awareness by
whom?"
> >
> > Paul:
> > > Or this from LILA?:
> > >
> > > "The low value that can be derived from sitting on a hot stove is
> > > obviously an experience even though it is not an object and even
though
> it
> > > is not subjective. The low value comes first, then the subjective
> thoughts
> > > that include such things as stove and heat and pain come second."
[LILA
> Ch
> > > 8]
> >
> > In this case, the answer to who is experiencing low value is the stove
> > sitter.
> >
> > > Platt said:
> > > I can't find a single instance in LILA where Pirsig, in explaining the
> MOQ,
> > > divorces perception (awareness, experience) from a subjective human
> being.
> > >
> > > Paul:
> > > Does the LILA quote above address this? Metaphysically speaking, the
> > > subjective human being comes after the value experience.
> >
> > Maybe metaphysically speaking. But not in everyday, common-usage-of-the-
> > language-speaking. Experience is always associated with a person, or at
> > least a life form.
> >
> > > Also, within
> > > the MOQ it is assumed that experience occurs at the inorganic level
> > > without the presence of subjective human beings, if it didn't,
evolution
> > > wouldn't have gotten started.
> >
> > Ah, now we get to the nub. "Atoms experience." Seems Dan Glover, who
knows
> > the MOQ as well as anybody, disagrees. He wrote recently: "I didn't say
an
> > atom 'values' nor am I aware of Robert Pirsig saying so. That would
> > indicate awareness. I believe 'preference' is the term he uses."
> >
> > Way back in the early days of MOQ discuss we had a lengthy debate about
> > the issue, "Are atoms aware?" As I recall the general agreement was that
> > the proposition had to be accepted if the MOQ was to logically hold
water.
> > This seems to be your position today. But you can see the problem: try
to
> > convince someone that atoms are sentient in any way whatsoever, even if
> > just a wee bit. Most people will think your crazy. I hate to see the MOQ
> > flounder on the proposition that atoms possess some sort of inner
> > sensibility.
> >
> > > Platt said:
> > > In fact, in the LS, Note 59, Pirsig states flatly, "The MOQ, like
> > > science, starts with human experience." Once you bring in a human, you
> > > bring in a subject, at least in the common definition of the word,
> > > "subject."
> > >
> > > Paul:
> > > I think you've taken that quote out of context. The full quote reads:
> > >
> > > "Within the MOQ, the idea that static patterns of value start with the
> > > inorganic level is considered to be a good idea. But the MOQ itself
> doesn't
> > > start before sentience. The MOQ, like science, starts with human
> > > experience. Remember the early talk in ZMM about Newton's Law of
> Gravity?
> > > Scientific laws without people to write them are a scientific
> > > impossibility."
> > >
> > > He is refuting to the statement that, "The static patterns of value
> > > start with the inorganic level. This implies that the MOQ existed
before
> > > sentience." I don't think this has anything to do with my denial that
> > > subjects and objects are the starting point of reality in both SOM and
> the
> > > MOQ.
> >
> > It does get confusing when you try to explain this. The starting point
of
> > reality doesn't require a person, but the reality of the MOQ does
require
> > a person.
> >
> > > > Platt said:
> > > > Further, Pirsig says we can never know ultimate reality (the
> > > > conceptually unknown). But that's saying we know something about it.
> > > >
> > > > Paul:
> > > > We can't know it *intellectually* but we can intellectually accept
> > > that it
> > > > exists nonetheless and work from there. We *can* know it by
> > > experience,
> > > > given that it *is* experience. Again, I thought this was made clear
in
> > > ZMM
> > > > and LILA.
> >
> > Again, ultimate reality can be known by a person through personal
> > experience. That "person" keeps hanging around no matter how hard we try
> > to ignore him, except presumably when it comes to atoms.
> >
> > > Platt said:
> > > Again, where in these books was it "made clear?" A couple of quotes
> > > would help.
> > >
> > > Paul:
> > > That it is known by experience:
> >
> > Thanks for all the quotes. In the interest of space I won't repeat them,
> > though I'm sorely tempted to replay what Pirsig says about socialists. .
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but in every one of the quotes you offered, a
> > person or persons is presupposed.
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Thu Aug 19 2004 - 20:28:21 BST