Ham said: 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?
Hi Ham I think I would propose that whatever we are we are subject to change and this change has a value for us. What causes us to change? Seems to be that what we come to call our world is something we relate to that we are in a relationship with, in which we are subject to change and also a source of change ourselves. In as far as we become conscious of this cosmos, world, and the patterns in it we call others, objects, and meaningful expressions and signs, then these come to be via an active process of acquiring and understanding a culture. To do this we are the microcosm that is conscious of the macrocosm, but as part of the macrocosm you might ask if we are not this very macrocosm looking at itself? So yes, this is an active process, it is the emergence of culture out of the higher levels of SQ. David M 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/
