[Arlo had said] Just another rhetoric distortive tactic. "Flower children"? I'm talking about what Pirsig calls "the tat tvam asi truth of the Upanishads", the dissolution of the "self" and the "object" in the moment of pure Quality.
[Platt] Distortion? Hardly. "Blowing of the mind" and "dissolution of self and object" go hand in hand. Destroying "one's ability to reason" likewise. Just as I thought. You really can't back up your accusation of "moronic distortions." [Arlo] Here's the quote, with the next sentence added. "Phædrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality perception, or not even perception, at the moment of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is no object. There is only a sense of Quality that produces a later awareness of subjects and objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject and object are identical. This is the tat tvam asi truth of the Upanishads, but it’s also reflected in modern street argot. "Getting with it," "digging it," "grooving on it" are all slang reflections of this identity. It is this identity that is the basis of craftsmanship in all the technical arts. " (ZMM) I highly doubt Pirsig was referring to "blowing the mind" when he wrote this. [Platt] If nothing else, the concept of selfishness is meaningless unless the concept of self as a reality is accepted. [Arlo] And since selfishness is your number one priority, no wonder you are screaming so loudly against the Buddhist foundations of the MOQ. [Arlo had said] The things we experience are "real" only insofar as our value-interaction with them. The "self" is like this too. I had provided quotes by Einstein and Pirsig capturing this sentiment. [Platt] Sounds like pure Idealism to me -- reality only from our experience of it. I thought that went out with Bishop Berkeley. [Arlo] Sounds like Pirsig to me. Maybe it would to you too if you took the time to read and understand ZMM. [Platt] That my daughter existed can be verified. You could not verify her as a beautiful person because you never met her. But, as soon as you admit that, you admit the existence of a private "self." [Arlo] Not at all. I admit that the collection of patterns you referred to as "your daughter" had real, valuable pragmatic experience with you. Pirsig touches on this when he writes about Chris' death. "What had to be seen was that the Chris I missed so badly was not an object but a pattern, and that although the pattern included the flesh and blood of Chris, that was not all there was to it. The pattern was larger than Chris and myself, and related us in ways that neither of us understood completely and neither of us was in complete control of." (Pirsig) [Platt] My catching my first-fly ball has long since disappeared from my memory. Memories of unique "self" experiences like that are ephemeral and could be considered illusory, if you admit the existence of a self which you don't. [Arlo] So memories that can't be tangibly verified are "illusions", but ones that can are "real"? What about a memory I have that I think could be verified, but I've never tried, is that real or illusion? What if when I tried to verify it, I can't? Does that make it turn from something real to something illusory? And what if later I do verify that memory after all? Does it turn real again? Better to say the dinner I consumed last night was a a set of biological patterns, and my "memory" of it (whether verifiable or not) is an "intellectual pattern". Thoughts, memories, dreams, all these are intellectual patterns, as is the "self". It too is an intellectual pattern. [Arlo had said] Are you saying the "self" is the biological body? Is "Arlo" the body I see when I look in the mirror? [Platt] Partly and necessarily, yes. And Arlo is the "self" that will eventually end up in a box or jar. Then hopefully there will be some with pleasant memories or Arlo that won't be illusory. [Arlo] The set of memories and categorized experiences known to itself as "Arlo" will indeed disappear when the hardware it runs on expires. But since our "selves" are forever intertwined in the dialogic intertwining of social activity, part of me (of us all) continue to be very "real" long after our biological bodies have turned to dust. [Arlo had said] Real only by virtue of their pragmatic value, not because of some existential being apart from this value. That existential being that we think is apart is the illusion. [Platt] That's precisely where we disagree. See Boswell above. [Arlo] I'm surprised someone in the MOQ forum would suggest that "subjects" and "objects" have real existential being apart from their value. "Value, the leading edge of reality, is no longer an irrelevant offshoot of structure. Value is the predecessor of structure. It’s the preintellectual awareness that gives rise to it. Our structured reality is preselected on the basis of value, and really to understand structured reality requires an understanding of the value source from which it’s derived." (Pirsig) "Quality, value, creates the subjects and objects of the world. The facts do not exist until value has created them. " (Pirsig) And "value" just does not go around creating subject and object willy-nilly. No, Quality brings subjects and objects into existence only when there is a pragmatic value to do so. The "self" is one of these "things". It has no "existence" apart from its pragamatic value as a focal point, a meta-thought, by which experience is measured, categorized and structured. [Platt] Keep listening. Maybe you'll learn something. Personally I go for Laura Ingraham whose latest book is No. 1 on the NY Times list. Maybe you should ask yourself why. Maybe even read the book. Open your closed mind a bit. [Arlo] What arrogance. Maybe you should open your closed mind a bit too, Platt. [Platt] Fact: Liberal Columbia University invites the president of a country that has assisted in killing American soldiers to speak. The same libs kicked the ROTC off campus in 1969. Appalling? You bet. You want to defend that? [Arlo] You are right. The ROTC should be left back on Columbia's campus. [Platt] No, that is not the rationale. I specifically referred to the loss of freedom under Hillary Care. No sane person buys your distortion spewed below. [Arlo] You mean, despite everything else I believe and fight for, I "hate freedom" simply because I support universal health care? I'd argue that freedom is improved under a system of universal health care. Those who fall into extreme debt to pay for outrageous bills when they dont have coverage, or who die because they can't get treatment they need, or who are trapped in jobs simply because if they try to find other work they will lose, forever, healthcare due to a preexisting condition... and not to mention that philosophically I find the notion of social Darwinism appalling. The idea that letting the poor die off, as if proposing that not only do they NOT have any Dynamic contributions to society, but they also are a hinderance, or drain, on Quality, is preposterous. [Platt] Your premise that I consider all government programs to be anti-freedom is pure bunk. Talk about distortion! [Arlo] Of course you don't. That was my point. You consider YOUR government programs to be great, but anyone who supports any OTHER program is villifed by ridiculous talk-radio rhetoric as being "anti-freedom". You parrot such ridiculous and embarrassing crap here, and its shameless. 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/
