Ron said:
> Pirsig tends to stray from anthropic principle, if you ask me, > which is the whole point of his metaphysic, busting that notion > of otherness as an absolute entity in itself. He supports the > idea that objective reality is a subjective interpretation. Ham: Pirsig has posited Quality in place of a primary source, and has made it a "moral absolute" rather than a metaphysical absolute. Ron: Pirsig posited Quality as experience, indefinable intellectually, thus not an Absolute for absolutes are intellections. Ham: By supporting the idea that "objective reality is a subjective interpretation," he has allowed for subject and object, which refutes his claim to have overcome duality. (Not that there's anything wrong with that; we can't escape S/O in existence.) Ron: I think you are picking and choosing what to take literally. By placing Primary experience BEFORE intellectual distinction (s/o being one of Many ways to make intellectual distinction) he has overcome duality. > Value then is centered on avoiding prejudicial assumptions > and focusing on actual first hand experiences. Intellectual > experience is but one of many modes of conscious awareness. > Sense of Value is an individual endeavor within an intellectual, > social, biological and inorganic context. Ham: I don't understand what you mean by "avoiding prejudicial assumptions", since our intellectual interpretation of experience is prejudiced (biased) by the very nature of our subjectivity. Ron: Agree, but being aware of this fact and placing the focus of our value decisions in immediate first hand experience moves away from the Social/intellectual values and towards a more certain value assessment Of a experience. > But it does not mean that existence is ultimately meaningless, > it means that "meaning" is self derived, that it is important to > recognize this and not go looking for meaning outside of ourselves. > The most certain of experiences - pre-intellectual ones are the > ones in which meaning holds the most value. Ham: In my view, belief that the only meaning is that which is invented by man is a nihilistic notion. It assumes that this process which encompasses everything in the universe, including man, is a cosmic accident. Ron: Ahh, but it does not ASSUME anything. It leaves all possibility open. It avoids assumptions. Ham: This is an outright rejection of the Anthropic Principle which (if I read your first statement correctly) is "the whole point" of Pirsig's metaphysics. Ron: Right-on, no assumptions. Anthropic Principle, Practically speaking, Is kind of like metaphysical masturbation. If you want to engage with Modulations of yourself, that's fine, but MoQ chooses to engage with Reality. > To get caught up in the objectivism of the levels applying > to an objective reality is kinda missing the point. > Evolution is now. The rest is just interpretation. Ham: I agree completely, and so, apparently, does Krimel who asks: > So why is everyone so focused on levels? Marsha volunteers another perspective, which is a more direct answer to my question because it includes the individual: > The individual (self) is process, and that process is valuing. > If all process shuts down, then the individual will cease to > exist. The relevance of value to the individual, at least in the > most basic sense, is it is dependent on value for its existence. Ron: I agree, a great to the point statement. Ham: I like that first sentence, Marsha. It should be set somewhere in large caps with RMP's signature affixed. As for the rest, it's true that if process ceases, there is no individual. But it's also true that if there is no individual there is no existence. For existence (the object of experience) and the individual (the subject of experience) are mutually exclusive contingencies. Ron: Ah, ah, ah. Existence or experience is neither the object of experience Or the subject of experience, those are intellectual constructs to Understand experience not experience itself. Experience IS. Before Intellection. Thus no dualism just as James terms it "raw feels" Or open awareness consequently it is most moral because it is Raw virgin naive sense and feeling before it gets sullied and tainted by thoughts about it derived from culture and other peoples say-so's or personal bias composed of it. Ham: Together they actualize value sensibility to create physical reality. Ron: As intellectual understandings in western culture yes. Ham: Isn't this really what Pirsig should have said? Does all this analysis of levels by the numbers add anything of philosophical value to this ontology? Ron: I agree, and I think the application of the levels to objective evolutionary Theory drives a division in meaning and doesent further the understanding Of MoQ in the least. This is where Bo's SOL theories can help, the evolutionary aspect of MoQ and the DQ/SQ intellectual interpretation Are based in and directly applicable to s/o based intellectual understanding. This must be made more evident. Bo caught on to this And developed an interpretation that he says works it all out but Fails to reconnect with the pre-intellectual awareness. MoQ is not A cohesive Metaphysic in this aspect and Pirsig would do well to Follow Willam James approach of divorcing the two concepts as he Did with Radical empiricism and Pragmatism. ( which are very Similar to MoQ). Thanks for the conversation Ham, this is getting interesting. -Ron 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/
