Ron said, previously:
> 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 responded:
> Pirsig has posited Quality in place of a primary source,
> and has made it a "moral absolute" rather than a
> metaphysical absolute.
>
> 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.
[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.
Ham:
Despite what James and Pirsig say, the term "primary experience"
conflates
epistemology. Experience is always an intellectual distinction.
Localized
"uninterpreted experience", such as the pain felt when nerve endings are
traumatized by heat (Pirsig's famous hot stove analogy) becomes an
experience only after one relates it to the stovetop and his butt. It
is
impossible to describe an experience without distinguishing its
relations.
Ron:
Exactly, he's not talking about describing experience he talking about
feeling it. Ever been "sucker punched" or been given a "hot foot"?
I can tell you from experience that intellect does not factor into
Immediate painful experience only after you recover does intellect put
An understanding on it.
Ham:
Instead of "pre-intellectual experience", I maintain that Value SENSED
by
the subject psycho-emotionally in immediately interpreted by the
intellect
in terms of differentiated phenomena. This is what I meant by the
statement
"our intellectual interpretation of experience is prejudiced by the very
nature of our subjectivity.
Ron:
I think visually this might be closer to the case.
> 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 an experience.
Ham:
What experience is not "first hand"? All experience is proprietary to
the
self. If I experience something it is MY "first hand" experience; I'm
not
getting it second hand from somebody else.
Ron:
Aw come on Ham, you never took your mothers advice? When she told
You to stop crossing your eyes because they might stay that way did you
believe her? Did you believe in santa clause without actually meeting
him?
Did you believe in god as a child? That WWII happened without
experiencing
It? Smell my finger? Any of that? Did you not run with scissors because
You found first hand that it was dangerous or because your mom said so?
Ham:
The values I realize from
experiencing social events or contemplating intellectual ideas are MY
values. The totality of my life experience represents my being in the
world. I don't see that any single value assessment I make is "more
certain" than any other. Value realization has nothing to do with Truth
but
everything to so with Sensibility, which is man's essence.
Ron;
So having sex and watching someone having sex is the same to you?
> 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:
Again, I do not acknowledge "pre-intellectual experiences. Can you
provide
an example of one?
Ron:
Blindfold yourself and run around your house. Really give it a shot.
See what surprises you as far as experience. Carefull with the stairs
Though, I don't want you killin yourself.
[Ham, previously]:
> In my view, belief that the only meaning is that which is
> invented by man ...assumes that this process which
> encompasses everything in the universe is a cosmic accident.
[Ron]:
> Ahh, but it does not ASSUME anything.
> It leaves all possibility open.
> It avoids assumptions.
Ham:
I fear this is an irreconcilable difference between us, Ron. It's
inconceivable to me that a life-supporting universe whose cognizant
agent is
the measure of value is simply one of many "possibilities". And I
strongly
suspect that Pirsig has contrived this multi-level hierarchy mainly to
avoid
acknowledging a "supernatural" source.
Ron:
Probably because there is no evidence of such, other than anthropic
meaning.
[Ham, previously to Marsha]:
> [I]t'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 get
> sullied and tainted by thoughts about it derived from
> culture and other peoples say-so's or personal bias.
Ham:
You continue to confuse me with this notion of "raw experience" before
intellection. How can experience BE without a cognizant subject?
Please
give me an example of this "most moral" of all experiences. It sounds
like
mysticism to me.
Ron:
All in all that is probably a good way of looking at it, mysticism.
Cognizant awareness is not necessarily limited to intellectual
Interpretation. Ever have intuition,or a gut feeling?
[Ham, previously]:
> Together [subject and object] actualize value sensibility
> to create physical reality.
[Ron]:
> As intellectual understandings in western culture yes.
Ham:
As experienced in all cultures, whether understood or not.
[Ham, previously]:
> 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
> doesn't further the understanding of MoQ in the least. ...
> 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).
Ham:
I don't subscribe to James' philosophy, and I don't understand Bo's
metaphysics. For me, a philosophy that doesn't recognize existence as
an
anthropcentric system is not worth studying. But I'm glad you think our
conversation is "getting interesting".
Ron;
Oh it is, you are ever an interesting dialectic partner, you are well
Spoken and highly intelligent. Opinions differ, but I do have fun
Discussing them with you. You teach me a great deal.
I thank you for that.
Essentially
-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/
