Ham,
<snip>
mel:(earlier)> >
> > Not to step between you and Khoo, but
> > where do you see what you allege in
> > the MoQ? (below)
> <snip>
> > Ham:
> > In short, the MoQ dismisses the essential
> > nature of the individual which is that of a
> > free, value-sensible agent.
>
Ham:
> I quote the following from A. McWatt's "Critical Analysis of Robert
Pirsig's
> Metaphysics
> of Quality" which is generally regarded as the authoritative
interpretation
> of the MoQ:
<snip>
mel:
I have not had the pleasure of reading
Anthony's work in a monolithic body, but
the vectors of meaning in the quotes of
your reply do not support the denial of
the individual as being a "free, value
sensible agent."
Admittedly my parsing of each quote is
not in its original context...
>
> mel(earlier):
> > It seems to me that Pirsig worked very hard
> > to illustrate that man IS in exactly that position.
> >
> > Further, your quoted assertion that:
> > ("...this leaves us with a philosophy that is
> > flawed by 'the separation of the individual
> > from the universe.' " )
>
Ham:
> Where is the individual and what is its role in the universe Pirsig
> describes here?
>
> "In the Metaphysics of Quality there's the morality called the 'laws of
> nature,'
> by which inorganic patterns triumph over chaos; there is a morality called
> the
> 'law of the jungle' where biology triumphs over the inorganic forces of
> starvation and death; there's a morality where social patterns triumph
over
> biology, 'the law;' and there is an intellectual morality, which is still
> struggling
> in its attempts to control society. Each of these sets of moral codes is
no
> more
> related to the other than novels are to flip-flops. (Pirsig, 1991, p.162)"
mel:
As I read this, he is discussing the relationship
of the levels in a 'wide-angle lens view' that is for
a landscape. He isn't focused on the individual.
>
> Mel (earlier):
> > It seems clear to me that in a metaphysic that
> > leaves each layer dependent upon each layer
> > below it for existence that there can be no
> > separation of the individual from the universe.
> > Not ever.
> >
> > The inherent structure of the old, mistaken,
> > mind-matter problem left us the appearance of
> > separation, but MoQ corrects that.
>
Ham: (first-half)
> I would submit that not only is there no "separation of the individual
from
> the universe", there is no distinction between them.
mel:
This sentence seems contrary to the statement in the
original e-mail to which I was responding:
"...Unfortunately, as you astutely point out, this
leaves us with a philosophy that is flawed
by "the separation of the individual from the
universe..."
Ham: (second-half)
> The universe is described by Pirsig as patterns of
> inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual "morality",
> and so is the "experiencer". The MoQ admits to no
> individuality apart from patterns and levels. Universal
> Quality is the agency, not man or his sensibility.
>
>mel:
There are some distinctions that are blurred in this
trinity of sentences above. The first sentence is not
including Quality distinctions. (I'll get back to these.)
In the second, the description of the individual as the
patterns among the levels is the "outside looking-in"
description of the individual. The "inside looking-out"
is entirely missing. The unique point, set, collection,
of patterns that consciousness is delimited within
for an individual doesn't show in these sentences.
In the third sentence is where the missing Quality
distinction is highlighted. To quote RMP (p180 of
edition ISBN 0553299611 //Paragraph 4)
"To the extent that one's behavior is controlled
by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But
to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality,
which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
Contained within the Pirsig quote is the choice
to follow DQ from the specific place of static
patterns within which one stands. It is the
sensibility of the individual to act within the
'degrees of freedom' available.
The delimited collection of patterns and
values that 'has your POV' chooses what
responses to DQ to take and then eddies,
surfs, flows, across other proximal patterns
and values, choice-by-choice.
(This is admittedly cumbersome language,
but striving for accuracy in an MoQ consistent
way.)
Equivalent would have been to say:
Given the state of my garden, I step outside
and choose which flowers to clip, as strike my
fancy, and return to the kitchen to arrange them
in a vase of cobalt blue. (This admittedly simpler
sentence is, however, more opaque in MoQ
defined terms. )
Now my head hurts...
thanks--mel
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/
