Ron: I highlighted some points that I think need to highlighted to Clarify the MoQ position in regard to the intellectual level being The aggregate of the S/O distinction. In fact Pirsig states that it Is the reverse, that the intellectual level creates the aggregate Of the s/o distinction.
Pirsig: "Between the subject and the object lies the value. This value is more immediate, more directly sensed than any "self" or any "object" to which it might be later assigned." "It is the primary empirical reality from which such things as stoves and heat and oaths and self are later intellectually constructed." Pirsig: "The clear, overt statement that quality is an empirical phenomenon." The Metaphysics of Quality restates the empirical basis of logical positivism with more precision, more inclusiveness, more explanatory power than it has previously had. It says that values are not outside of the experience that logical positivism limits itself to. They are the essence of this experience. Values are more empirical, in fact, than subjects or objects. Ron: When speaking in abstract terms about the MoQ, Values are more empirical Than subjects or objects and because value is an individual experience It firmly roots the concept in a Radically empiricist scientific method. It may lend more clarity by addressing the abstract/concrete distinction Of the grammatical objective aspect that logical positivism requires to function in our culture. Pirsig addresses this when he clarifies the term of "meaning" in an Empirically objective manner. Pirsig: I notice that Barfield uses the term "meaning" which is also avoided in the MOQ. "Meaning" confuses two distinct entities which the MOQ sharply distinguishes as, "value" and "definition." When a scientist asks "What is the meaning of this phenomenon?" he may be confusing two entirely separate questions: (1) "What is the value of this phenomenon?" and (2) How does this phenomenon integrate intellectually with what we already know? By using this equivocal term some scientists find they can make value judgments without' admitting they are doing so. They cannot say, "This is important because I like it," so they say, "This is meaningful!" If someone challenges them by asking, "Why is it meaningful?" they can evade question (1) "What is the value?" by answering question (2) with a lengthy explanation of how the phenomenon in question integrates with our existing knowledge. I have seen this happen again and again and imagine you have too. Ron: Especially in discussions about the "meaning" of the 4 levels in MoQ. Pirsig: It was not made clear enough in Lila, but the Metaphysics of Quality resolves the subject-object problem by containing it at a high level so that there really is no contradiction between the two systems of metaphysics. Ron: Note to Bo, that Pirsig names subjective and objective as two distinct Metaphysical systems. SOM is a MoQ neologism, a consolidation term. Pirsig: The MOQ says that the two lower levels of static patterns of quality-inorganic and biological-are exactly synonymous with what is called "objective." The two upper levels-social and intellectual-are exactly synonymous with what is called "subjective." The terms "objective" and "subjective" are no longer needed in any way. They should be avoided as imprecise and confusing. If you get in the habit of stopping every time you see the word "subjective" or "objective" and substitute the appropriate static value level, you will find a lot of fallacious thinking suddenly becomes very apparent, particularly in the social sciences. Mr. Pirsig continues: The MOQ does not agree with Steiner (on p.208 of Poetic Diction) when he says "thinking transcends the distinction of subject and object." Ron: Bo's 5th level. RMP's explanation: According to the MOQ thinking is subjective. But the MOQ does agree with Steiner when he says consciousness transcends the distinction between subject and object because the MOQ says that' not all consciousness is thinking. Artistic consciousness precedes thinking and is separate from it both in the judgment of Freshman composition and in jumping up from a hot stove, and also, I think, in the making of scientific discoveries. Ron: This is the REAL bone of contention - consciousness. Consciousness involves all the levels plus DQ. Experience equals reality. This is where the abstract and concrete meet and where the container paradox engages. Where Pirsig leaves it undefined because of this paradox. Which Ham thinks is a copout. But there is not much more than can be said Past this. Quality is a rational circle that begins and ends with experience. This is the most certain we can ever be about anything and the point of Beginning on which to build certainty in knowledge. Speaking in general abstract objective terms Quality is energy In concrete particular objective terms Quality is consciousness. The "meaning" of this is that source is intellectually indefinable and unknowable. But it isn't to say that it is not experience able. Our knowledge Of quality is direct experience. It's meaning infinite. >From "When Harlie was one" WE MUST DEFINE NOT ONLY THE PROBLEM, BUT ITS CONDITIONS AS WELL. BOTH MATTER AND ENERGY ARE REFLECTIONS OF THE SAME THING. CALL IT EXISTENCE. DR. KROFFT'S THEORY IS THAT EXISTENCE HAS THREE FORMS: "INERT," "FLOWING," AND "KNOTTED." IN YOUR TERMS: SPACE, ENERGY AND MATTER. (TO LAY HUMAN BEINGS, ENERGY IS EXPRESSED AS MOTION OR CHANGE. THE TWO ARE SYNONYMOUS, ESPECIALLY ON THE SUBMOLECULAR LEVEL. IN DR. KROFFT'S THEORY, HOWEVER, ENERGY REFERS TO TIME, FOR NEITHER CHANGE NOR MOTION CAN BE EXPRESSED EXCEPT AS A FUNCTION OF TIME.) WE WANT TO STUDY THIS THING CALLED "EXISTENCE" - BUT BECAUSE WE ARE MADE OF MATTER, LIVE IN SPACE, AND ARE MOVED BY ENERGY, THE PROBLEM IS CONSIDERABLE. IT IS LIKE TRYING TO PHOTOGRAPH THE INSIDE OF YOUR CAMERA. WE ARE WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO STUDY, AND WE ARE LIMITED BY THE SUBSTANCE WE ARE MADE OF. MATTER INTERACTS WITH MATTER. ENERGY INTERACTS WITH ENERGY. BOTH INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER, AND BOTH HAVE AN EFFECT ON SPACE. WE HAVE NO NEUTER PARTICLES WHICH ALLOW US TO STUDY ANY FORM OF EXISTENCE WITHOUT AFFECTING IT IN THE PROCESS. ONE CANNOT OBSERVE ANYTHING WITHOUT ONE'S PRESENCE INTRODUCING CERTAIN DISTORTIONS INTO WHATEVER IT IS ONE IS OBSERVING. WE CANNOT USE A MEDIUM TO ACT UPON ITSELF AND EXPECT ANYTHING BUT MODULATIONS OF THAT MEDIUM. THIS IS WHY "ENERGY" - I.E. THE EXPRESSED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO STATES OF EXISTENCE - IS A CRITERION OF ALL HUMAN SENSORY MODES - AND THE REASON WHY WE WOULD LIKE TO SIDESTEP IT ALTOGETHER. 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/
