Hey Ham, > Platt -- > > > Hey Ham, > > > > Given that the MOQ is quite clear that the top two tiers in the > > hierarchy are man made in response to Dynamic Quality I can't > > say the scenario is inhuman. Am I missing your point? > > Apparently you are. "Man made in response to Dynamic Quality" is > unintelligible to me. Is it supposed to mean that DQ "creates" man? If so, > whose "response" accounts for the creation?
Answer: The responses described in Chapter 11 of Lila. I assume you have a copy. > The point you are missing is one that you yourself called to my attention > years ago: "The individual is the cognizant locus of the physical universe." That sounds a lot more like you than me. I have stated a number of times that I don't subscribe to philosophical idealism. Static patterns exist whether I personally experience them or not. > This conscious locus is not society or its collective "intellect", as Pirsig > would have it. It's not "a collection of inorganic and biological > patterns," either. Rather, it's the subjective awareness of the individual > "knower". And it "exists" in relation to its experience of value as finite > beingness (objects). You assume there is such a pattern as "conscious locus." To me consciousness is awareness is experience is Quality and is everywhere all at once. I merely tap into it as does my cat, UTOE, and all other creatures, great and small. > A hierarchy made up of physical and behavioral atttributes has no sentient > locus, thus cannot "be aware" or "have experience". Only an individual > agent can do that. That's what being-aware is. All sentient organisms > represent a fusion of two primary existential essents: Sensibility and > Beingness. Human being is unique in its sensibility to value > (self-awareness) and its capacity to reason (intellect). These attributes > are not distributed throughout the universe as an extracorporeal realm or > level but exist only as individuated psycho-organic entities. It is this > individuation that makes possible the realization (and objectivization) of > value (i.e., Quality) by a free agent. Perhaps we agree that individual agents -- from particles to atoms to cells to organisms to plants to animals to humans -- tap into universal consciousness, i.e. experience/Quality. Or perhaps not. It's difficult to tell where your "psycho-organic entities" begin. > As I've said before, the evolutionary hierarchy is flawed on two counts. It > assumes that value (quality) exists independently of sensibility, and it > denies subjectivity It denies subjectivity but doesn't say Quality exists independently of sensibility/experience. Rather, it is sensibility/experience. > This is epistemologically unsound. The hierarchy is > "inhuman" in the sense that it denies value-sensibility as the essence of > man. "Value sensibility as the essence of man" is your assumption. Nor does the hierarchy deny value-sensibility. Rather, it is pervasive at all levels. > Because it also fails to posit a primary (metaphysical) source for > existence, Pirsig's thesis is limited to causal explanations of process in > time. It posits Quality not as the source but as existence itself having no beginning and no end. Quality is what is. > I know this won't satisfy you, Platt. But it should at least help you > understand what I consider to be the MoQ's shortcomings. Likewise. But I don't see that we're really so far apart. Your Essence is my Quality. The only difference is you don't see Quality happening until humans came along. But I see Quality always there, like Essence. But just so there's no misunderstanding. Pirsig said the subject-object division you champion is a high-quality intellectual pattern. It's just that he thinks, for the reasons he cites in Lila, the Dynamic-static Quality is better. I agree. But I could be wrong, he could be wrong, you could be wrong, we all could be wrong. Which is why I took up painting. No one can say that my painting is wrong. All one can say is, "I know what I like." With respect and regards, Platt P.S. How is "hope and change" working out for you? 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/
