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. [Ham said]: 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". [Ron replies to Ham]: I have been arguing against ideas coming before matter, the response has been that "matter" is a concept we have about experience , I'm asking this question conceptually which is muddying the waters linguistically, making it impossible for me to express my ideas in anything else but SOM method. which will quickly be misinterpreted for SOM assumption. In this way MOQ is infinitly defendable because anything that can be said about it is in SOM terms. The general MOQ interpretation being that undifferentiated experience,(experience which is distinction with out prefference) is all one can ever know about reality, anything else is an intellectual conception. which shuts down anything anyone can say about the fabric of experiential reality. I agree with you in the idea of distinction without prefference being experiential value awareness. which is why Pirsig can place this value before the concept of subjects and objects. The misinterpretation occurs with placing this experience with out prefference in the dynamic quality section rather than the leading edge of static quality. If this experience was placed in the static category of value (where I feel it belongs) SOM is a bit more embedded than the intellectual level. Its root is experience itself. Then SOLAQI works And explains why MOQ feels like a transcendance from SOM. In my opinion. The big question being is this transcendental state still part of the intellectual level? or are we poking our head into an unknown realm that can only be described in mystical terms? do all the levels merge into one quality state of awareness at this level? If so, would this roughly equate to your ideas about an explaination of source in the MOQ? 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/
