Hi Magnus and all,
JONATHAN> <<<
> Pirsig hasn't really done away with the SO at all, but has incorporated
> it into his MOQ. [snip]>>>
>
> Pirsig has not created multiple non-exclusive subjects. The reason is that
> in the MoQ, this "things that happen" you mention, *is* ultimate reality.
> Things that happen *is* quality events. There's no way two different
subjects
> can observe the same event because there's no such thing as a box in which
> "things happen" that subjects of different levels can observe.
>
> Once again. The quality event is experience which is ultimate reality.
> The MoQ universe consists of events, not of substance. Quality events
> are unique, no two subjects can observe the same object.
Magnus I must disagree somewhat. If you and I share a Black Forest Gateaux
(your favourite if I remember correctly), I agree that each of us might
experience something different, but I assume we might also agree on certain
aspects. You and I can agree that we are eating the same cake, and that it
tastes pretty good (or not). The agreed patterns OBJECTIFY the episode as a
SHARED experience. I don't see how the world can function without such
sharing.
You go on to say that "quality events are unique", a statement that has no
real meaning. I don't see how the word UNIQUE can have any meaning except by
reference to subject-object. I maintain that reality can be described in terms
of infinite overlapping subject-object patterns. My experience of eating the
cake with you includes the experience of watching you eat and utter sighs of
sublime pleasure, while your experience may include the sight of me with
chocolate on my face. As
> A subject - object pair is created by each quality event.
I maintain that reality can be described in terms of infinite overlapping
subject-object patterns. My experience of eating the cake with you includes
the experience of watching you eat and utter sighs of sublime pleasure, while
your experience may include the sight of me with chocolate on my face. Yes,
each of us has a unique experience, or rather,to quote your semi-Swahili
friend back to you, "same, same, but different".
But I don't think I need to continue arguing with you Magnus, because you seem
to reach my point of view anyway . . .
> But apart from this, I do think the levels are divided vertically by
> a subject/object split. However, it's not a rigid split. You can't
> split each level into a subject and an object half. Each quality
> event produces one subject pattern and one object pattern, but the
> subject pattern is only the subject from its point of view. The
> other pattern is the subject from its point of view. Imagine a
> twin star system, both stars rotate around a common central point.
> Star A consider itself to be the subject and values the vicinity
> of star B, which is the object from star A's point of view,
> and vice versa.
>
My only problem is your one-to-one mapping between "event" and subject-object
pattern. This seems to be the subject-object view of a reality made of a
number of discreet, absolute events. I think that reality is a continuum that
can be carved up in any number of different ways. The events that you define
as object + subject are a consequence of the carving up.
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:32 BST