Greetings, Akshay --
> Everything "originates" from Dynamic Quality, which I interpret to be > pure consciousness/awareness. The mind is not conscious. The mind > is a complex static pattern from which our experience comes. Our > innermost awareness is DQ. Even inorganic matter has consciousness, > rather, it is "made up" of consciousness (originating from it). The only > difference between us and rocks is that we have more complex structures > because of which our unique experience of reality is possible. > > Morals are not *just* subjective. The truth is that we cannot > *decide* morals, because they exist by themselves, they are the > ones who have landed us here trying to *decide* what is good > and what is not, we can only discover them. It is our nature > ultimately that is morals, because it is nothing but our value system. However accurately you may have interpreted Pirsig's metaphysical system, your analysis clearly demonstrates what's wrong with it. It has no soul, no cognizant "agent". You say "the mind is not conscious", but only "a complex static pattern." Yet, somehow, it is this static pattern that makes our experience sensible (aware). If conscious awareness isn't primary to experience, then I have misconstrued the MoQ ontology. You also say "our innermost awareness is DQ." Yet, we are only aware as individuals, whereas DQ is not individualized (differentiated). If the conscious individual is not the subject of objective experience, why is the SOM so persistent a notion that Pirsig has taken great pains to explain it away? Then you suggest that rocks have consciousness "originating from" organic matter. If you mean to say that consciousness "creates" inorganic matter, I can accept that. But only if consciousness is primary to the objects it constructs. Dynamic Quality is what you and Pirsig claim is primary, i.e., the creative source. Which means that this undifferentiated source is by some strange logic responsible for differentiated experience. Something is askew in this epistemology. More troublesome to me, however, is the idea that "morals exist by themselves", that "morals have landed us here trying to decide what is good". If judging what is good is judging what is moral, then morality exists only for one who does the judging. It does not exist without the judging, and thus cannot possibly have "landed us here". Wouldn't it make more teological sense to say that some creative source put us here to become conscious of what is good (and bad), to realize individually the value of the Whole as manifested in its parts? Or, as I've expressed it, to make Value aware of its essential source? Just a thought. Regards, 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/
