To Ham, specifically, and to others;
> [Ham] > This is another example of a syllogism with an undistributed middle. But, > irrespective of the false logic, "moral judgments" are made by conscious > individuals, not by the world. It is man's intellect that impugns morality > to the universe and "asserts" that this is value. Electrons and moons are > not held to their orbits by "preference" or "value" but by > electro-mechanical or gravitational attraction. Heat doesn't dissipate > because "it likes to." This kind of thinking is neither philosophical nor > scientific; it's childish animism based on a naive interpretation of > physical behavior. Excellent criticism. Although, I'd hardly think animism childish. "We speak of people who attract and repel each other (like magnets), of the force of habit, of cause and effect . . . our language is liberally sprinkled with the metaphors of science- and the language of science is inescapably fused with images from everyday life." -K.C. Cole and I forget where I read this (paraphrased): "Especially when talking about the quantum world, we are forced to use language that is increasingly poetic... electrons that "orbit" and "jump"... we have strings that "vibrate"... "strange" quarks..." Animism is sometimes necessary for people to be able to understand and talk about nature. Now, do I think that an apple falls to the ground because it literally "likes" to? Yes and no. Whether you say that the apple likes to fall or that it is pulled toward the ground by the force of gravity (because there's no implication of choice involved in being pulled); we can still agree on what is happening. Do I think that an apple could, despite disliking it, fall up? No. An apple is predetermined, always, to fall down. The hard part is how to reconcile an apple's experience of liking to fall, with, say, my experience of liking to eat steak. They are two experiences of wholly different kinds. I'll make a new paragraph now in the hopes that someone would like to try to dispute that. (:P) Traditionally SOM would say that the apple's liking to fall is an objective fact, while my liking is subjective. However, to say that would be to completely undo what I have been trying to say. Moreover, it doesn't really explain the difference; it only names it. One could trace my steak preference to the tendency of taste buds to "send" electrochemical "messages" to the brain. That tendency is of the same kind as the apple falling. I guess you could say (though you might not) that on the inorganic level, my liking steak and the apple liking to fall are the same. But there are other levels! > [Ham] There is no experience without sensible awareness. And > awareness isn't biological, social or intellectual - it's psychic, > subjective, and without an existential referent. We're talking about > experiential (SOM) reality here, not metaphysics, and we cannot describe our > "real world" of relational existence in any other terms than subject/object > experience. > > The "essence" of reality is something else, possibly another issue for > discussion. But MoQers make the mistake of confusing the two by defining > physical reality as Value, Quality, Morality, or Intellect, all of which are > subjective constructs. That's man's role, not Nature's. Personally, I don't believe in essences, nor do I understand the need for the experience to be tied to awareness; certainly it can't be tied to self-awareness (because otherwise animals would not experience things, and I believe they do.) How do we even know there *is* such a thing as awareness, if I'm understanding your meaning of the word correctly? Because we have self-awareness, we must also have pre-intellectual awareness? Er, sorry. That it is definitely another subject. I am willing to start a new thread for it, if you want. > [Ham] we cannot describe our > "real world" of relational existence in any other terms than subject/object > experience. > > The "essence" of reality is something else, How do you know? I'll offer up one idea: mystic experience. Mystics claim to have been in touch with a deeper reality; whether they have or not is irrelevant. What is relatively certain is that they are in touch with a *differently perceived* reality; a mystic often reports a dissolution of the subject/object duality as part of his/her experience. This can be tracked by changes in brain activity. Afterwards, these people find it difficult to describe their experiences... our entire language structure is S/O because that's the *default* way we describe our reality. But not the only. There is the mystic union. There is MoQ (which is, to me, partially SOM). *Reality,* as much as it can be said to exist (along with the Law of Gravity), and I say this with a hint of irony, must be something different from anything we experience. Are we in agreement? Thanks, Zenith ---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:15:44 -0400 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MD] differences between MoQ and SOM > > Greetings, Zenith [Platt quoted] -- > > > [LILA, Chpt. 12]: > - "The 'Laws of Nature' are moral laws." (Free Will?) > > [Zenith]: >> I would not consider this to be about free will. >> The Laws of Nature, such that govern the movement of atoms, >> are moral laws in the sense that they involve value-sensibility >> that, as Ham points out, Pirsig allows even to objective >> phenomena like atoms. I think Pirsig is reiterating the idea that >> Quality can be sensed even by inorganic objects. The laws of >> entropy, of gravity, of thermodynamics are best described by >> saying that heat "likes" to dissipate or that objects "like" to >> exert forces on one another. > > In the paragraph that precedes these statements, Pirsig writes: "The > Metaphysics of Quality says that if > moral judgments are essentially assertions of value and if value is the > fundamental ground-stuff of the world, then moral judgments are the > fundamental ground-stuff of the world." > > This is another example of a syllogism with an undistributed middle. But, > irrespective of the false logic, "moral judgments" are made by conscious > individuals, not by the world. It is man's intellect that impugns morality > to the universe and "asserts" that this is value. Electrons and moons are > not held to their orbits by "preference" or "value" but by > electro-mechanical or gravitational attraction. Heat doesn't dissipate > because "it likes to." This kind of thinking is neither philosophical nor > scientific; it's childish animism based on a naive interpretation of > physical behavior. > > Platt quotes the author of Lila's Child as saying: "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." This conclusion doesn't > rectify Pirsig's fallacy. Again, it is pure animism. Unrealized value is a > logical absurdity. There is no experience without sensible awareness. And > awareness isn't biological, social or intellectual - it's psychic, > subjective, and without an existential referent. We're talking about > experiential (SOM) reality here, not metaphysics, and we cannot describe our > "real world" of relational existence in any other terms than subject/object > experience. > > The "essence" of reality is something else, possibly another issue for > discussion. But MoQers make the mistake of confusing the two by defining > physical reality as Value, Quality, Morality, or Intellect, all of which are > subjective constructs. That's man's role, not Nature's. > > Thanks for trying to reconcile my cosmology with Platt's response, Zenith. > However, I fear that never the twain shall meet. > > Essentially yours, > Ham > > > --------------------- >>> - "Chemistry professors smoke pipes and go to movies because irresistible >>> cause-and-effect forces of the cosmos force them to do so." >>> (Determinism?) >> >> ---------------------- >> I imagine its a standard definition of determinism >> ---------------------- >> >>> - "We can just as easily deduce the morality of atoms from the >>> observation >>> that chemistry professors are, in general, moral." (Then comes the >>> syllogism to "prove" it.) >>> >>> With all due respect to the author, this is nonsense. First of all, >>> Pirsig >>> himself as much as tells us that experience creates our reality, which >>> suggests that any Free Will or Determinism perceived in existence is an >>> attribution by the cognizant subject. What must occur before the >>> experience >>> of process and causes is individuated awareness and its sense of Value. >>> Pirsig calls this sensibility "pre-intellectual experience", but he does >>> not >>> posit it as proprietary to the subject. In fact, he gives as much >>> value-sensibility to atoms and other objective phenomena as he gives to >>> the >>> individual who observes them. If man is not a free agent, where is the >>> Free >>> Will? Whose will is it that creates the universe? Obviously, Pirsig >>> wants >>> to be on the side of the objectivists who claim that everything is the >>> result of cause-and-effect determinism. >>> >>> [Platt]: >>>> The premise is accepted by many physicists who believe all is >>>> simply different forms of energy. That's at the root of Pirsig's >>>> criticism of SOM. How does "everything is different forms of >>>> energy" explain quality? In fact, how does it explain "different >>>> forms?" (That's when "oops" comes in.) As for configuring >>>> atoms of a person, I'm sure you're familiar with, "Beam me up, >>>> Scotty." Fiction now, but who knows? >>> >>> [Ham] Apart from the "oops" factor and the fact that the MoQ is a >>> metaphorical >>> representation of physical existence, do you really believe that a human >>> being is no more than a particular arrangement of atoms or energy >>> patterns? >> >> -------------- >> Someone once said that the most amazing thing about the universe is that >> it is at all intelligible. The "oops" factor, emergent properties, >> patterns, Quality... could they be the same? >> >> As for a person being "nothing more" than an arrangement of atoms or >> energy patterns, well, why not? Isn't a sculpture of an elephant "nothing >> more" than an arrangement of stone or welded metal or whatever? But no, >> its also art! A person is also character, spirit, soul! >> >> The key word is "arrangement." Therein lies the magic. As Craig pointed >> out, "the MoQ LEVELS address this issue." On the inorganic level, all we >> are is stardust. Only on a higher level do things like personality and >> social status come into play. Sorry, that's what I think! >> >>> Do your worst, >>> Zenith >> 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 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/
