Platt Holden
Tue, 10 Aug 1999 08:47:21 -0700
Hi Roger, David, Avid and Group: ROGER: A meteor does not create the s/o, moon/meteor duality. Only the intellectual humans experience or create this unique form of experience (or are created by it) BUT, THAT WHICH *WE* DEFINE AS MOON/METEOR EXPERIENCE DOES EXIST. PLATT: Agree. It's well to keep in mind the distinction between the instantly created "duality" of human experience and supposedly nondual experiences at lower levels, although biological patterns may share our dual experience (me/other) to some degree. However, we're making a transparent assumption here. I really have no experience of what an atom experiences, or whether it can experience anything without our participation, as the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics suggests. ROGER: I would say that the eternal flux of DQ creates what the intellectual level refers to as patterns which can interact with other patterns. PLATT: I question describing DQ as "eternal flux" since DQ is conceptually unknown and thus indescribable except to say it can't be described. Did Pirsig use “eternal flux” someplace? ROGER: The alternative (to "mine is the only world") is that we all see many sides of a shared world of experience/quality. Which ‘mine’ are you referring to Platt? The one that wrote this phrase last week, or the one that wrote it last month? How about the one that was you in high school? PLATT: The only world that primarily exists is the one I'm experiencing this instant. The past is gone, the future is yet to come. All thoughts, memories, projections, dreams, histories, predictions, etc. occur only in the now moment. Although we share many common experiences, 99.999999999% of what each of us experiences from moment to moment, especially our emotions and thoughts, is unknown to another. No “sharing” in that respect I’m afraid. I have yet to meet a mind reader. DAVID: The inorganic level depends on experience for its existence and evolution, but it DOESN'T DEPEND ON OUR PERCEPTIONS FOR ITS EXISTENCE. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Our perceptions depend on their existence. ROGER: Undualistic experience indeed does not depend on our existence. Sorted, leveled, objectified models sure do depend on us though. Just 'cause we named and built models of gravity does not imply that reality floated prior to humans. Our naming created objects, but it did not change preconceptual reality. PLATT: There’s something strange about the phrase, "preconceptual reality." It contradicts itself. The very word "reality" presupposes “concept." I guess that’s why mystics hate words. Besides, and more importantly, it seems both David and Roger object to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics which Pirsig supports. Somewhere along the line we're going to have to come to terms with Bohr, Heisenberg and Pirsig on this one. DAVID: The MOQ's whole ontological scheme, the four static levels evolving dynamically, is based on experience. But its based on a broader and deeper meaning of that word and it goes way beyond what we think of as experience, namely our human experiences and observations. In the MOQ even atoms have experiences, in fact it pretty much describes reality as a verb. Its an infinite series of quality events, of direct experiences that leaves phenomenal reality in its wake. It’s an infinite dance of freedom. Experience in this sense is built into the very fabric and process of reality. The epistemological issues are certainly tied into this whole scheme, but that doesn’t mean they are the same issues. The question of our perceptions, of our human experience, is a distinctly different matter. ROGER: Here I agree completely. PLATT: Me, too. Without specifying whether an atom's experience is nondual or not you make the point that its experience is different than ours. I think that's a safe assumption. More importantly, you've neatly summed up a key idea that's essential to grasp if one is to understand the MOQ. Maybe we should make a poster out of it and send it to all would-be Pirsigians. Thanks, Dave, for making this essential idea crystal clear and, yes, poetic. DAVID: This is how questions of our perceptions are tied in with the overall scheme of the MOQ. Epistemologically speaking, our perceptions are indirect. They are heavily mediated through all the layers of reality that preceded the intellect in historical evolution. ROGER: This I totally disagree with. Intellectual experience is not buffered experience. PLATT I agree with Roger. Not only is intellectual experience not buffered, but we can directly perceive Dynamic Quality, as examples in Lila of the song, the heart attack, the brujo, the baby, etc. clearly illustrate. PLATT IN A PREVIOUS POST: This corresponds to Pirsig's belief that primary reality is an empirical perception. AVID: THIS IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pirsig's belief that primary reality is an empirical perception OF QUALITY. PLATT: Recall the conversation about perception implying a “perception of what by whom?" To complete your sentence, who do you think perceives Quality? Humans? Animals? Plants? All entities at all levels? Do you agree with David's interpretation of the MOQ that experience (perception of Quality) occurs at all levels, that even atoms are aware? PLATT IN A PREVIOUS POST: In other words, what you see is you-seeing, and what you are is your perceptions. If you're talking about ultimate reality or primary reality, there really isn't anything else except you That's why I claim, "Mine is the only world." AVID: AND HERE YOU GO WRONG, because the experience is primal, you are secondary, so if WE SHARE AN EXPERIENCE, it means that from a primal experience we derive me and you (separately), therefore the experience is GLOBAL and not private. PLATT: Sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning. Are not my experiences of my thoughts private? Are not my experiences of what I observe "out there" also different than anyone else's, even if just by the fact that my line of sight is necessarily slightly different from another's who is standing next to me? Thanks Roger for creating a high quality format for responding to more than one person at a time. I assumed I could "borrow" it from you without prior permission. I wish everyone would use it because it presents each contributor’s views in a straightforward, easy-to- read fashion and encourages succinct responses. Platt MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]