Hi Ham,
[Ham]
> Platt --
> I know you would rather discuss international politics, but I can't let
> this
> go unchallenged.
I enjoy all our discussions, Ham, regardless of the subject.
[Platt]
> > Until the subject (a pattern of values) symbolizes (with an
> intellectual
> > pattern of values) his realization (Dynamic Quality), the subject
> remains
> > mute. Thus, I can only speculate on what the subject "realizes." ...
[Ham]
> You can only speculate on what your cat or another human being realizes.
> But there can be no doubt as to what you as your own subject realizes.
> Are
> we at least in agreement on this? If not, how do you define
> "realization"?
"Realization" equals awareness equals experience. Yes, we agree that I'm
aware of being aware -- if I stop to think (SOL) about it. I doubt if UTOE
is similarly aware of being aware, however.
[Platt]
> > [Pirsig] believes in what you call subjects, but he calls them patterns
> of
> > value
> > consisting of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns
> of
> > value. Remember: for Pirsig, the world is a moral order. Like he
> suggests,
> > when you see subjects and objects as interacting patterns of value, you
> > get
> > a whole different view of reality than seen through subject/object
> > spectacles.
[Ham]
> Assuming your analysis of the MoQ's "subject" is correct, you have
> "patterns
> of value" chasing after value.
Not chasing, interacting.
> Whether the value being sought is "static"
> or "dynamic", something is wrong with this circular epistemology. Simply
> speaking, a value (or pattern of values) has no need for value, hence no
> need (e.g,, desire or motivation) to interact with what it already is.
"Need" is a value. The "interaction" is a value. Value "is."
> This
> throws Michael's concept of the subject "seeking transcendence" flat on
> its
> face.
How so? There are high values and low values. To some transcendence is a
high value.
> You haven't allowed for sensibility in this analysis. I define the
> subject
> as value-sensibility, the basis of proprietary awareness and the driving
> force of human action. I can't see that either of these attributes is
> accounted for in Pirsig's epistemology.
Sensibility is sense-of-value. UTOE has it, a cockroach has it, an atom has
it.
> Perhaps you could explain how man
> as a collection of value patterns is subjectively motivated toward a
> greater
> ("dynamic?") value.
Motivation towards higher value (betterness) is built into the universe, as
represented in all creatures (value patterns) great and small. It's the
answer to, "Why survive?"
> Or do you, like Bo, regard Intellect (the power of
> knowing or realizing) as something beyond subjectivity?
The "power of knowing or realizing" is plain old "experience." Intellect is
based on the value of the subject/object division which in turn is the
basis of reason, logic, science. Beyond intellect is the wordless
understanding that experience and value are inseparable.
Warm regards,
Platt
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/
