Hello DMB, Ian, Ron and Gav --
[DMB said]:
> 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.
[Ian said]:
> ...our idea of matter as material objects is literally not real, not
> pre-existing our experience and conceptions.
[Ron 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? ...
[Gav said]:
> Prior to conceptual reality is the undifferentiated flux of the present.
> Conceptual reality is *abstracted* from this flux. this abstraction is
> a mental process. a process of ideation.
Ideation is a good metaphor for intellectualization. But it does not create
the "stuff" of the universe. I disagree with Ron (and Pirsig, if he
actually said that ideas come before matter). That's Plato's Idealism, and
I don't think the author of the MoQ intended to put "ideation" before
Quality -- his "primary empirical reality".
May I suggest a way out of this dilemma?
Assume for the moment that what we call "the material universe" is a
differentiated representation of "uncreated" reality. Let's call this
differentiated representation "experience". In essence, the uncreated
reality has no subjects or objects, no time or space, no differentiation of
any kind. Instead it is the absolute potentiality for difference.
Difference begins with two; therefore, duality is primary to creation.
Let's hypothesize that, using its absolute potentiality, the uncreated
source negates something of itself to cause a "nothingness" to divide it.
This nothingness separates "experience" from "reality" as subject and
object, respectively. But since there is no nothingness in the absolute
source, this negation (or division) is "counterbalanced" by an affirmation
(or affinity) for the source within the duality. To use Pirsig's term,
let's call this affinity Quality (although I prefer Value).
Obviously, experience presupposes cognizant sensibility. What the subject
has primary sensibility of is Quality -- the quality (or value) of what is
separated from it. And, since everything in existence is differentiated, so
are subjects. Every subject perceives himself or herself in terms of a
particular perspective, that of the organism with which he/she identifies.
That organism is the first "construct" of individuated subjectivity, and all
the objects and events subsequently experienced are intellectualized
("ideated?) from Quality. Universality in existence means that the
objective world will be quantatively perceived (i.e., experienced, created)
in the same way by every subject. But the Value--excuse me--Quality
experienced by each subject is proprietary that that individual. So that
what we are aware of is differentiated (by the brain and nervous system),
even though the value-sensibility (Quality) from which all experience is
derived is primary to awareness.
Does this make any sense from the MoQ perspective? I hope so, because if it
doesn't, I see no way we can understand each other metaphysically.
Thanks to all of you for presenting the existential dilemma as your own
individual viewpoint.
Essentially yours,
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/
