Avid Anand
Sat, 14 Aug 1999 02:21:12 -0700
> 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? > Avid: What you try to do is to ask the SOM [Subject Object Metaphysics] question. It is exactly where we are at [culturally speaking]. The question of "what comes first?" The perceiver or the perceived? The hen or the egg? Pirsig by breaking down quality into SPQ [static patterns of quality] and DQ, started HIS model in quality, AND THE PERCEPTION OF QUALITY [The case of the Philosopher sitting on a hot stove]. HE STRESSES that the experience comes first, the objects and subjects follow. This is the way that Pirsig says MoQ is constructed. There is the experience of quality, objects subjects including the self image is a matter of interpretation of this experience. IT SHOULDN"T MAKE SENSE, it is a different Metaphysical method, making sense is only agreeing with SOM, nothing more. I guess you are right that the experience and the experienced should be linked in a way that they don't stand alone, that they don't have meaning without the other [like cause and effect]. There is no cause without an outcome and there is no outcome without a cause. How this should be formulated, is a good question, which I have several proposals too. I intend to offer it as the next month issue in LS. and don't forget to be gentle Avid icq 6598359 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]