Hi Ham, DMB Steve said: >> It is intellect that takes undivided experience and creates >> the pattern called "organism," but this is not to say that there >> is not real experience prior to the inference of this pattern. >> The MOQ does not even object to the idea that objects >> have an independent existence, it just points out that this is >> an idea, and like any other idea should be taken only so far >> as it is practical.
Ham: >As a foundational theory, this seems a bit fuzzy to me. If the intellect >(and I presume we're talking here about the individual's intellect) creates >the pattern from "undivided experience", this presumes that we can have >undivided experience. Steve: I think as soon as you say that there is someone having the experience the experience you are talking about is already divided, contingent, patterned, whatever. Ham: > Perhaps this is a matter of semantics, but I define >all experience as differentiated. But, I'll go with your concept that the >intellect (as subject) experiences something (as object) which it then >intellectualizes, creates, or converts into a "pattern". According to this >epistemology, experience of the object is pre-intellectual and comes first. >Is that correct? If so, the pattern is created out of the experience, not >the other way around, which means that the object is primary to its pattern. >That raises the question: why is this not an S/O phenomenon? Steve: The way you described it, it is an S/O phenomenon, but the MOQ says something different. It starts with Quality (experience without presupposing a person who experiences) and says that the subject is an abstraction from experience. The subject then intellectualizes experience to come up with the idea that he existed prior to the experience and is the "one who experiences." The MOQ doesn't say that thinking of yourself as an experiencing subject is a bad idea, it just points out that this is an idea. Ham: >Moreover, if everything experienced is a pattern, this presupposes an >observing subject (experiencer?) and an object or pattern to be experienced. >You'll probably argue that the observer is also a pattern. So that, even if >objects or their patterns exist, they cannot be made conscious (experienced) >without a cognizant subject. In other words, it would seem to me that the >body of this subject would have to be primary to its awareness, whether it >is a pattern or not. That's why, for me, the primary division is between >sensible awareness (consciousness) and the perceived "being" of its object. Steve: The MOQ says Quality comes first since this cognizant subject of yours would have no meaning without Quality. Also, it agrees with you that "the body of this subject would have to be primay to its awareness" to the extent that this is a good idea that should be used as long as it is practical to do so, but this idea has no meaning without Quality, so Quality is actually primary. Ham: >My epistemology is that the primary source of existence (I call it Essence, >Pirsig calls it DQ) creates a dichotomy in which sensibility is divided from >the source. This allows for the awareness of an "other", i.e., >subject/object experience, as beingness. What holds this dichotomy together >is the Value of the undivided source. In actualized existence, the >"negative" (creative) force that divides the subject from its object is >counterbalanced by an "affirmative" force (Value) which draws the value >agent (individuated selfness) back into its primary source (Essence.) This >makes each individual the autonomous agent of existence, or what Baxter and >others have described as the "Choicemaker" of the universe. > >This is only my hypothesis, not a science or a dogma, and I don't expect any >MOQist to endorse it. However, I do think it offers a plausible basis for >morality and purpose in existence, which Mr. Pirsig's patterned levels >hierarchy hints at but never really develops. At the same time, despite the >metaphysical differences, I don't view my hypothesis as "in conflict" with >the MOQ. Any comments? Steve: I don't think it is "in conflict," you are just saying something different. The polar coordinates and rectanglular coordinates and paintings in a gallery analogies apply. DMB can probably explain this better than I can. Regards, Steve 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/
