Hi Ham, > [Quoting "Lila's Child"]: > > Platt: "As I understand it, the MOQ equates Quality with direct > > experience. In turn, experience creates static patterns of value. > > The problem is - how could inorganic static patterns be created > > unless inorganic entities like atoms were able to experience?" > > > > Pirsig: "I think the answer is that inorganic objects experience > > events but do not react to them biologically, socially or intellectually. > > They react to these experiences inorganically, according to the > > laws of physics." (Annotation 30)
[Ham] > I'm sorry, but such answers still do not satisfy me. Why must inorganic > patterns be > created by objects or phenomena that have experience? Does a hurricane, a > light wave, or a billboard have experience? [Platt] I think you are erroneously lumping hurricanes, light waves and billboards with atoms, molecules, cells and organisms which have the capacity to respond and adapt to their environments, not to mention self-combine with others of their kind to transcend to new forms. > Pirsig says (in the first > quote) only that "experience creates static patterns". To most people that > implies _human_experience. When pressed to explain how objects > "experience", he invents a rationale that doesn't make sense. If atoms, > rocks, and houses do not react to Quality "biologically, socially or > intellectually", then they are behaving mechanically, according to the laws > of physics and thermodynamics. Again, atoms are significantly different than rocks or houses. > Physical behavior doesn't require > "experience" at all. In fact, the only reason for the question is the > assumption that any motion or change has to be a "reaction to experience". > Why? Just to support a philosopher's theory? Wouldn't you agree that evolution requires something more than "mechanical behavior?" As Pirsig asked: "Why, for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to organize themselves into a professor of chemistry? What's the motive?" (Lila, 11) [Platt] > > In my opinion, the Achilles heel of your Essence philosophy is > > your belief that reality is "a concoction of my own proprietary > > awareness." ... I simply cannot buy the idea that the universe did > > not exist before I arrived on the scene, or that dinosaurs only > > existed as bones because no human ever observed them in the > > flesh, or that trucks only exist in the mind, an assertion that being > > run over by one easily defeats. [Ham] > For you the universe did not exist before your arrival. Pirsig himself said > "experience creates static patterns". Living beings have experience, and > experience is patterning our own 'being-in-the-world'. Without sensibility > there is no universe, but since all value-sensibility is a reflection of the > same primary source, experience is universal. Which is why existentialists > like Heidegger, Sartre, and Pirsig, not to mention the scientific > objectivists, insist that Being is primary to Essence -- even when that > essence is called Quality. > > I'll concede that this takes a huge "leap of faith", and it's a concept I've > arrived at only recently. But look at it this way: Physicists have all but > rejected the "concreteness" of matter, leaving only energy or "vibrations" > to account for physical reality. Donald Hoffman and Merrill-Wolfe have > posited Consciousness as the fundamental reality, while Pirsig has opted for > Quality. Is Absolute Sensibility really so radical a concept in comparison > with these ontologies? Not at all. The one thing I cannot doubt is my own value sensibility. That's why I find your philosophy appealing. But, I can't help but think of that truck. It may be only real "in my mind." but I still avoid stepping in front of it as it comes barreling down the road toward me. Best regards, Platt > > > Be that as it may, always a pleasure to converse with you and read > > your views, most of which I agree with, especially those regarding > > the current sad state of affairs in the U.S., exemplified by a > > presidential > > wannabe who believes he has campaigned in 57 states. > > A Harvard graduate no less. > > Needless to say, the feeling is mutual, despite our philosophical > differences. Thanks for your kind references to my book, Platt, and rest > assured that I shall continue to pursue this line of reasoning against all > odds. > > Essentially yours, > Ham > > 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/ 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/
