David --
> This is how I see it, at least one aspect. Everything we know is derived > from experience and our thoughts about experience. There's a lot of > flux and change and we are not detached observers because everything > we experience matters to us, we value it as good or bad, sublime or > horrific, pleasant or itchy. We can also try to make some sense of this > experience by recognising patterns.... > I think it has a good point and I don't see it as something frozen and > owned by Robert Pirsig because it needs further development, > that we should see all patterns as having equal ontological status > and [do] not see object experiences as more real than subjective > patterned experiences -they are all experiences. Thanks for describing the MoQ ontology as it is generally understood. One leading question... To what extent, in your opinion, does experience create its objects? I got the distinct impression from Pirsig that the 'Quality experience' was primary, and the objects were secondary. Things matter to us because they are representations of Value (or Quality). If this is true, then the differentiation of objects (patterns) is an "effectual" process of the intellect working through experience. What this suggests to me is that, rather than passively experiencing the physical world, we are active agents in its creation. What say you, David? Regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
