Ham
> I'm introducing a new topic, because I think it's the crux of our problem
> with Pirsig's Quality thesis.
Actually, the crux for you in this forum is a few selected quotes from
your recent posts. Unless you change your mind about them or at least
understand the MoQ position about them, you will not be able to really
discuss anything here.
> Consider that we've been parsing levels, dominance, patterns, intellect,
> evolution, and quality without so much as a mention of the "individual
> self". Steve pointed out that "personification of levels .. is muddling the
> MOQ." Does it make sense to personify levels while at the same time
> dismissing the "person" who defines them?
Yes, it makes very much sense to level by level build a "selfness",
instead of just introducing it in one single race, your "man".
> We talk about higher levels evolving out of lower levels, only to dominate
> the lower levels, as if man were just a passive bystander of a cosmic play.
Yes, man *is* just a bystander. You can never get a MoQer to say
anything different. You must first of all acknowledge that we disagree
here. Not keep claiming it as if everyone must agree with you.
> My question to you all is: What is the point of this endless war of conquest
> among levels of Quality if man is not its central focus? A while ago, Bo
> chastised me for bringing up the Anthropic Principle because Pirsig didn't
> sanction it:
>
> [Bo on 3/24]
>> Pirsig does not say that experience creates the world, rather that
>> Quality creates the world, its first creation the static inorganic
>> level, its last the intellectual ditto. Nothing about "us
>> valuating" or other "human consciousness creating the world".
>
> And why is that?
>
> Who else but man does the "valuating" in this world?
I'm sure most of the people have tried to teach you some MoQ basics.
Here's my first stab:
Every single quality event involves two objects. From each object's
point of view, *it* is the subject valuing the other. And I'm not just
talking about two people looking at eachother, I'm talking about two
electrons attracted by eachother's gravity but at the same time repelled
by eachother's negative electric charge.
Unless you extend your meaning of the word Value, you'll never
understand what the MoQ is about.
> Of what use is Value
> without a subjective agent with a sense of what is good and evil,
> significant or trite, and the intelligence to move his reality toward wisdom
> and betterness?
As I said, you really need to extend your meaning of the word Value if
you want to make heads or tails of what we're talking about here.
> If man is not the measure of goodness, if the evolution of
> nature is an automatic process that goes on without human involvement, what
> cosmic purpose is served by man's creation?
Seriously, are you trying to convert us to some religious interpretation
of reality? Then please take your questions elsewhere.
> And how can Philosophy possibly address the individual's position in the
> universe without acknowledging his existence? Indeed, of what value is
> Intellect if it can only deal with factual knowledge derived from a universe
> which Science has already explored in extensive detail?
Extensive detail? Where is the dark matter? Is there dark matter? What
else is causing the extra gravity required to keep the universe in
place? How can entangled particles communicate faster than light? What's
it like inside a black hole?
Come on!
> I feel we have lost our valuistic connection with reality in these
> discussions, and I need some assurance that the observer's experience,
> defined by RMP as "the cutting edge of reality", really does start with the
> "pre-intellectual" sense of Value.
Don't connect RMP with *your* meaning of Value. They have nothing in
common except the spelling.
> So I propose that we open a discussion
> as to what relevance Value has to the cognizant individual. (Feel free to
> use "Quality" as a synonym if it's more comfortable within the MoQ syntax.)
So you think we can just exchange words to talk to eachother?
And then your reply to Marsha:
> But it's also true that if there is no individual there is no
> existence.
That's actually correct if you see every static pattern as an individual.
But I'm pretty sure you, by individual, mean "man", right?
Which just leads us back in circles. We've been here over and over again
before. Where did those individuals come from if there was no existence
from which to develop those individuals. The only answer for you is a
God creating them. So why don't you join a religious group and discuss
it there instead?
Sorry, I ended up quoting most of your post and then some, my intention
was to just comment on the worst parts. But it turned out most were...
Magnus
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/
