Hi Dan, > >Quoting Dan Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > All things arise, flourish, and pass away. Are we things? SOM says yes. > >MOQ > > > says no. If one chooses to believe the SOM myth, then so be it. There is > > > little I or anyone can do to change their minds. > > > >Will your be so kind as to point out where in the MOQ as described in Lila > >it says we are not "things?" I would appreciate it.
Hi Dan, Sorry you went to all the trouble of looking up and typing out the quotes below. Pirsig doesn't claim that the "universe of distinguishable things" is false. His point is that instead of being collections of particles and atoms as science alleges, things are collections of moral values. "If one comes from a cultural tradition where an electronic assembly is primarily a moral order rather than just a neutral pile of substance, it is easier to feel an ethical responsibility for doing good work on it." (Lila, 30) Perhaps you think of a "thing" solely as a physical object that casts a shadow whereas I think of a "thing" as any phenomena of experience, including ideas, emotions, and Pirsig's patterns of value. Since my question failed to make that clear, I apologize. [Dan] > It appears to me that that is what LILA is about... there are many ways to > divide reality. To consider people as "things" or objects is subject and > object based thinking, however. I am a bit shocked at your reply and suspect > you're just baiting me, but be that as it may... > > "After many months of thinking about it, he was left with a reward of two > terms: Dynamic good and static good, which became the basic division of his > emerging Metaphysics of Quality. It certainly felt right. Not subject and > object but static and Dynamic is the basic division of reality." (LILA) > > "In a subject-object metaphysics morals and art are worlds apart, morals > being concerned with the subject quality and art with object quality. But in > the Metaphysics of Quality that division doesn't exist. They're the same. > They both become much more intelligible when references to what is > subjective and what is objective are completely thrown away and references > to what is static and what is Dynamic are taken up instead." (LILA) > > "He remembered the child Poincare referred to who could not understand the > reality of objective science at all but was able to understand the reality > of value perfectly. When this reality of value is divided into static and > Dynamic areas a lot can be explained about that baby's growth that is not > well explained otherwise." (LILA) > > "...it is not until the baby is several months old that he will begin to > really understand enough about that enormously complex correlation of > sensations and boundaries and desires called an object to be able to reach > for one. This object will not be a primary experience. It will be a complex > pattern of static values derived from primary experience." (LILA) > > "The same is true of objects. > One uses these complex patterns the same way one shifts a car, without > thinking about them. Only when the shift doesn't work or an "object" turns > out to be an illusion is one forced to become aware of the deductive > process. That is why we think of subjects and objects as primary. We can't > remember that period of our lives when they were anything else. In this way > static patterns of value become the universe of distinguishable things. > Elementary static distinctions between such entities as "before" and "after" > and between "like" and "unlike" grow into enormously complex patterns of > knowledge that are transmitted from generation to generation as the mythos, > the culture in which we live." (LILA) > > Dan comments: > > Please note the sentence: In this way static patterns of value become the > universe of distinguishable things. > > The way I read it, the MOQ states that people are not things. We are a > collection of static patterns of value (plus undefined Dynamic Quality) that > have become things in the culture which we inhabit. [Platt] > >I have this strange belief that capital > >punishment results in the real death of a real individual. I also wonder if > > people don't really exist why we should care what happens to them. Perhaps > >you can > > explain. [Dan] > People exist as a collection of static quality patterns of value, not as > objects or things. We value people. That's why we care about what happens to > them. People exist. They are real. They are not illusions. That's all I wanted to hear. Thanks Dan, Platt 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/
