At 04:54 PM 1/27/2009, you wrote:
Marsha --
At 05:12 AM 1/27/2009, you wrote:
I agree with Bo that the levels are important and that the MOQ
perspective is above the level hierarchy. But I think a stronger
impact can be made from understanding the nature of the patterns
that inhabit the levels. So here I agree with you. Once the nature
of the patterns is understood, the usefulness of the level
structure becomes obvious. I am concerned that the patterns are
seen as independent (inherently existing) entities, just a new name
for objects. This I think is the wrong view. RMP has stated that
there are no thing-in-themselves in the MOQ, and he has mentioned
Buddhism and emptiness, though he has not stated my interpretation
directly.
So much of Pirsig's language is ambiguous that I sometimes suspect
it gets in the way of our understanding.
Analogues upon analogues upon analogues... I think RMP was trying to
get us to the experience.
You talk about the possibility of MoQ having a stronger impact by
our "understanding the nature of the patterns that inhabit the
levels." What, exactly, is a "level" if not an intellectual pattern?
Right. I agree. A level is an intellectual pattern.
If a tree is a pattern, why isn't the biological process that
produces it also a pattern? If a leaf that grows on the tree limb
is a pattern, why isn't the photo-synthesis by which it is sustained
not a pattern?
All patterns. Again, "analogues upon analogues upon analogues."
Indeed, the nature of the earth -- its rocks and trees and living
organisms -- is "goal-directed process".
Towards freedom, spontaneity, dynamic quality.
What survives and remains of this process (at least long enough to
be recognized and identified) is what you're calling a "pattern".
It may be integrated into an existing pattern, or form a new pattern.
What perishes or never assumes physical form is past history or
unrecognized phenomena.
That's it.
This is my interpretation/understanding/analogue. I cannot channel
RMP's mind to know for sure if it is as he intended.
[Ham, previously]:
If Quality is ultimately "dynamic", why do we experience its
patterns as "static"?
[Marsha]:
To create a sense of stability where one cannot be assured. It
works most of the time, because we define the rules so we can play
the game successfully. The rules are defined to our
specification. If they work they become a pattern. If they don't
work or lose their functionality, they slide into oblivion (or
history). This is my interpretation.
Since we can be aware of only a minute fraction of what goes on in
the universe, we look for relatively "stable episodes" in this
emerging process and ignore the rest. Stability, like symmetry and
intellectual comprehensibility, has value to us.
Yes, this is how I understand it.
Your revered author once wrote: "A thing that has no value does not
exist." He's touching on epistemology here -- how we acquire
knowledge; but he leaves this important topic undeveloped. I would
suggest that "patterns" are stabilized forms of "otherness" which
are selectively valued and added to our knowledge. They may be
objects, processes, principles, or categories, depending on your
intellectual or aesthetic sensibility.
The dichotomy of self and other needs to go. The is a constellation
of patterns. The self is an ever-changing, collection of
interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality
. If by 'aesthetic sensibility' you mean 'valuing experience', I agree.
A pattern seems to be a static-making mechanism. A tree, for
instance, has a long process of growth with many attributes and
aggregates. While a static pattern of 'tree' will differ from
person to person depending on past experience, on the most
superficial level there is shared pattern of what is a tree. And
on a superficial level we just overlay this basic shared pattern of
tree onto our experiencing a tree. We impose the finite where none
exist. Am I making sense?
That, I believe, is how an SOMist might explain patterning, except
that instead of defining the source of the pattern as "otherness",
he/she would refer to it as Quality (an MoQ synonym for
Value). And, although Pirsig doesn't say so, the SOMist would
probably regard Value as something outside of (external to) his/her
subjective awareness. In other words, the epistemology of SOM is
that knowledge is acquired by the subject from objective value. RMP
would argue that there is no subject or object, but that they are
both patterns of Quality (Value).
Otherness and selfness are mistaken identity. There are only
ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected, inorganic,
biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value
responding to Dynamic Quality. A pattern creates an independent self
upon the process valuing, but it is just a mistaken pattern.
Now, I've been accused of unenlightened SOMism because I acknowledge
the subject/object division of existence.
I'll acknowledge it too, but as conventional existence, not inherent
existence.
Yet, Essentialism is a valuistic philosophy. The difference is that
my ontology has a metaphysical foundation. Like Lincoln said on the
eve of the Civil War, "A house divided against itself cannot stand",
I maintain that a divided ontology does not meet the test of
Reality. To put it simply, existence is not ultimate reality.
Conventional reality is not ultimate reality, but maybe it is that
they are mutually interdependent.
The self/other division that accounts for appearance is only a
differentiated image of its absolute source. What Pirsig calls
"pre-intellectual experience" is not experience but value-sensibility.
RMP has indicated that he considers value and experience to be synonyms.
Experience is the psycho-emotional-intellectual process of
differentiating Value into a world of finite beingness.
Valuing forms patterns. Is that what you are saying?
Individuated sensibility is the cognizant locus of that world, and
each of us is a participant in actualizing it.
As a collection of patterns interacting with Dynamic Quality we are
the process.
[Ham]:
And can you give me an example of what you call a Dynamic Quality
experience? (Kindly avoid Pirg's infamous "hot seat" analogy.)
[Marsha]:
A dynamic experience is one without thought. You are experiencing
and reacting without thinking. I don't know what else to
say. I've had brief little moments in all kind of everyday
occurrences. It's without analysis. It's spontaneous. More
likely when I paint, but once while driving on a curvy, country
road. It was incredible. But these are a few moments, not a steady stream.
Moments of epiphany are rare, indeed; but I submit that
value-sensibility is much less esoteric than the example you've provided.
You asked for an example of a DQ experience. This one was easily
identified as such. I might have given my one and only freefall. It
WAS mindblowing... But of course, dynamic quality is a aspect of all
experience.
As a painter dipping into your palette, don't the pigments
individually have value for you? When I look at a high-definition
picture on a flat-panel screen, I'm aware of my sensibility to
color. Platt has often spoken of his sensibility to beauty in
works of art. There are passages in the music of Liszt, Wagner,
and Tchaikovsky that literally mesmerize me. Surely such
"responses to" value are common experience for those who have
nurtured their aesthetic sensibilities. What we don't realize is
that ALL of our experiences, whether aesthetic, physical,
intellectual or social, are value-based.
I agree.
Isn't that what Pirsig was getting at when he likened experience to
the "cutting edge of reality"?
I'm not sure. Most experience is outside awareness, just patterns
repeating automatically. I think that cutting edge can be broadened
and cultivated with awareness and attention. Meditation would be my
recommendation, but sometimes dancing does the trick.
Human beings exist on the periphery of Essence, sensible only to its
value. Everything else is an objective representation of that
value. Anyway, that's my epistemology. I've been somewhat
long-winded here, but hopefully it will help explain not only what
"makes Ham tick" but why Value figures so prominently in my
Philosophy of Essence.
Putting aside the use of different analogues, there seems to be many
areas where we share the same understanding.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Essentially yours,
Ham
Valuistically yours,
Marsha
.
_____________
Look, there's no metaphysics on earth like chocolates.
(Fernando Pessoa)
.
.
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/
