From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Feb 20 2005 - 21:47:29 GMT
Ant, Scott, Sam, Matt and all MOQists:
Ant said to Scott:
.., materialism sees everything in the universe as being composed of
physical substance while the MOQ sees it as composed of value - physical
substance being just one (probable) manifestation of value.
Scott replied:
True, this is different. But as I have argued, a manifestation of value only
makes sense if there is awareness of value.
Then Ant McWatt said:
Well, I think this is the crux of the matter. Pirsig is assuming that all
there has been and all there ever will be are values. If awareness is
defined as self-consciousness it has only developed relatively recently and
will possibly disappear at some point in the future. ...To deny that values
are self-contained is to re-introduce SOM via having a "senser" and
"something sensed".
dmb chimes in:
Exactly. Here's the crux of the matter. Ironically, Scott, Sam, Matt and
some of Pirsig's other critics are insisting that Pirsig is the one who
can't ahke off those SOM assumtions. In actuality the MOQ only looks that
way to them because they can't get those SOM goggles off. Its forgivable
because it is quite a lot to overcome, but I still get crazy over it because
the correcting idea has been presented to these gents explicitly and
repeatedly. Look, here we have Dr. McWatt calling attention to his
philosophy textbook, one that includes comments from Pirsig on the matter
within a coherent context. We have Pirsig speaking to this point in Dan's
book, in LILA and in ZAMM. From start to finish, Pirsig is consistent on
this point. Here are nearly 30 years worth of quotes from him...
"This means Quality is not just the result of a collision between
subject and object. The very existence of subject and object themselves
is deduced from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the
subjects and objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause
of the Quality!" [ZMM Ch19]
"The Metaphysics of Quality says pure experience is value. Experience which
is not valued is not experienced. The two are the same." [LILA p418]
Pirsig spoke directly to this misconception in [LILA'S CHILD] when Bo asked,
"If the world is composed of values, then who is doing the valuing?"...
"This is a subtle slip back into subject-object thinking. Values have been
converted to a kind of object in this sentence, and then the question is
asked, "If values are an object, then where is the subject?" The answer is
found in the MOQ sentence, "It is not Lila who has values, it is values that
have Lila." Both the subject and the object are patterns of value."
And
"I think the trouble is with the word, "experience." It is...commonly used
as a subject-object relationship. This relationship is usually considered
the basis of philosophic empiricism and experimental scientific knowledge.
In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a preexisting
object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or
object....So in the MOQ experience comes first, everything else comes
later..."
dmb continues:
What can a person do to make it any clearer? I sincerely wonder. Scott and
others keep asking the same question is various forms: who or what is doing
the valueing? But in the MOQ values and experience are the same thing. And
this event preceeds the ideas of who and what is going on. Maybe its a bit
sloppy to put it this way, but for the sake of simplicity think of it like
this: Experience is the most basic and fundamental feature of reality.
Everything begins there. Awareness of this kind is not to be confused with
self-consciousness or our common sense notions of subjective experience. Its
more basic than that and does not depend on biological creatures with sense
organs, which are only ideas after the more primary experience. Failing to
grasp this idea...
Scott asked:
Was there consciousness before the biological level came into being?
dmb quotes Pirsig on that point too...
"In the MOQ empirical experience begins with Quality which generates
intellectual patterns. One of these intellectual patterns is named 'senses,'
but this pattern is derived from the study of anatomy and is not primary in
the actual empirical process."
"The MOQ agrees that the senses are primary in an anatomical explanation of
[the] empirical process. So the statement in Lila seems correct to me. But
at the cutting edge of the actual Dynamic empirical moment these anatomical
explanations are nowhere to be found."
In response to blunders like that, dmb had said:
Scott is exactly wrong. ...It's remarkable, really. It's like Scott has made
a game of it and has devoted himself to avoiding correct interpretations at
all costs.
Ant McWatt added:
Why I think this is happening is because Scott still hasn't got his head
around the fundamental tenet of the MOQ i.e. that (ontologically) values
come before subjects and objects, not simultaneously with them and certainly
not before them. Without taking this tenet fully on board, confusion
regarding Pirsig's work will follow.
dmb says:
Right. One has to shed the idea that experience requires a pre-existing
subject. The MOQ's no-self mysticism eludes these same critics for this same
reason. In their hands the mystical experience is confused with subjective
experience, with biological or intellectual static quality rather than DQ.
Those SOM goggles distort everything beyond recognition so that DQ is
interpreted to be Kantian, theistic, Jamesian, or some other SOM based
concept. But this is in the eye of the beholder. Here's another example...
Scott argued:
But (as I have argued) value implies awareness of value,
Ant objected:
Only if you take an SOM stance. The MOQ is intuitively "wrong" for the
typical Western mind and it is this priority of subjects and objects before
values which need to be mentally broken. Pirsig argues that metaphysics is
improved by placing values first and I think you should examine the
pragmatic results and consequences of his "Copernican inversion" in order to
judge the merits of his system rather than begging the question in the first
place.
dmb says:
Notice how we are still dealing with this same crucial issue? Despite the
lenght of the post, I clipped everthing except the most conspicuous displays
of this persistent misconception.
Ant McWatt said to Scott:
A conflation of intellect (as understood by Pirsig) with Dynamic Quality
will be confusing if applied to the MOQ. A real spanner in the works which
I'm opposed to.
dmb says:
Right. This one kills me too. The central assertion of philosophical
mysticism is that DQ can only be apprehended by NON-RATIONAL means, which is
to say that it can not be apprehended intellectually. Scott's conflation of
the two claims the very opposite, defies the MOQ's static'/dynamic split and
thereby demonstrates a misconception of the MOQ's most central ideas. About
these critiques...
Scott said to Ant:
And that you call posts in which the author (DMB) calls me "confused",
"having a blindspot", "hypnotized", "unable to read", because he misreads
what I have I said, responding abusively to imagined disagreements and not
actual ones -- that you call them "excellent" boggles my mind.
Ant McWatt replied:
When I stated that David Buchanan's posts were generally excellent I was
referring to their intellectual content - the way David clarifies and
expands various parts of the MOQ rather than referring to his insults.
However, I can see why he (and Marsha) are frustrated with your recent posts
because you are tending to distort the MOQ rather than clarifying or adding
to it. Of course, that's a generalisation as, on the other hand, you have
made some very good observations. You wouldn't be quoted twice in my PhD
if that wasn't the case!
dmb concludes:
I'm sorry that I've made you feel "abused", Scott. From my POV it is quite
all right to heap criticism on a fellow philosopher. I think that is a
perfectly legitimate way to treat one's opponent and does not constitute
abuse. Its proper use. It might not be very pleasant to see critical
comments about one's ideas, but I am not just calling you names either. I've
tried my best to explain exactly why your views are confused, to explain the
cause of the blindspot, to show you how you've misread and misinterpreted
with quotes and explanations. Surely it matters that I am at least trying to
make a case. I mean, there is a discernable difference between legitimate
criticism and mere insult. If I've failed to make that distinction, then I
really am sorry, Scott - you ignorant slut!
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 : Sun Feb 20 2005 - 22:55:03 GMT