Ron Kulp said: ...Pirsig placed value (quality) before subject and object in the SODV paper and supported what Dan stated - that ideas actually do come before matter. I questioned how literal does he mean this? Is he saying that ideas create matter scientifically? If he does mean this, doesn't this concept then render ultimate reality as subjective in origin? ...
dmb says: That's exactly the question I asked Paul Turner. (2 or 3 years ago) "Are we supposed to believe that reality pops into existence the moment we have the idea of it", I asked. (Or something like that.) As I understand it, the answer is definately "no". I don't think "literally" is the right word for it, but I'm pretty sure Pirsig means it. See, he's pointing out that "matter" itself is an idea rather than a pre-existing fact of the universe. And this is exactly what he's saying about subjects and objects; they're ideas not pre-existing facts of the universe. These are the assumptions of SOM and so Pirsig's counter-intuitive claim has to be understood WITHOUT those assumptions. [Ron] This what I meant about using language to describe abstract concepts. I had the impression people were denying that there is a phenomenal reality that is experienced. Call it matter call it energy call it Gary. I understand this experience is shaped by memory but it's genesis is not in memory itself. This I argue logically that memory is derived from past experience, this experience is presented in a sensory distinct manner or else there would be nothing distinct to remember. I say this experiential distinction itself lends itself to s/o thinking. S/O thinking is a natural human condition, to intellectually realize s/o is illusion and understand ideas formed by memory shape experience, is argued by BO as a dynamic intellection freeing itself from common static perception. BO says to manipulate S/o percieved reality with this awareness is using subject object logic as quality intellect. MOQ is an intellectual awareness, to employ it in our everyday lives is using a SOLAQI. BO is looking to describe this distinction in awareness reffered to as an epiphany or enlightenment as something more concrete within the MOQ description and less mystical. Although I can see where Pirsig would term it intellectual no matter the awareness behind it. dmb continues: Gravity is usually understood as one of those pre-existing facts of the universe, a law of reality that has always operated regardless of whether of not anyone was aware of the fact. And so we naturally (SOM) think that it was discovered by Newton. No so, says Pirsig. Instead, he says, Newton invented gravity. I forget the source, probably Lila's Child, but there is an account of somebody trying to wrap their heads around the idea and asking him something like, "You mean before Issac Newton came along apples didn't obey the law of gravity". Pirsig replied, "No, they didn't. Apples just fell." See, nobody is saying that apples used to float around like cosmonauts or anything too weird. Its just about being careful when it comes to seeing the difference between our ideas about reality and reality as it is actually known in experience. And in this case he's saying that "matter" is a theory about experience. Its a pretty damn good interpretation for most purposes, but its not to be confused with the lived reality. Was there "matter" before the concept was invented? To answer in rhyme with Pirsig, no, stuff was just hard and heavy. And of course "hard" and "heavy" are ideas too, etc.. The world is built of analogies upon analogies going back too far back to see but always growing out of lived experience. Solipsism designates being lost in one's own subjective reality and is something like the individualistic version of subjective idealism. In any case, the MOQ's alternative assumptions don't allow for such a charge simply because of the "subject's" new status as idea rather than fact. [Ron] With ideas requiring experience to form, Thanks for clearing that up. Subjective idealism bugs the hell out of me and the notion that MOQ may be in bed with it was messing with my head. Thanks for taking the time to help iron this out. I greatly appreciate it. It is rather difficult to speak about how MOQ may apply to science without getting caught up in SOM descriptions thus leading to SOM assumptions about MOQ concepts. Best regards, Ron _________________________________________________________________ Share your special parenting moments! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us 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/ 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/
