RMP: Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it.
Krimel: Right on, Bob! I couldn't have said it better myself although I have tried many, many times. Ron: right on is right. great quote.. awsome quote speaks for itself rightly but alas smply mi pov xo 1,0 x,y n,e lat long length width inches meters coke pepsi ________________________________ From: Krimel <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 11:43:26 AM Subject: Re: [MD] LC: Expanded Annotation 57 Marsha and All: Thanks for the reference, Marsha. It offers wonderful illustrations of both problems with Pirsig and problems interpreting Pirsig. Bob, you are welcome to chime in anytime. I hope the coffee is especially tasty this morning. The main problem here is in Pirsig's understanding of experience. Since he claims that "experience" is the "main thing", "the real deal" this is unfortunate. Below he claims that experience can have three different meanings. The first he says is between objects but the example he gives is serious flawed: "It can be used as a relationship between an object and another object (as in Los Angeles experiencing earthquakes.)" This is a glaring example of personification. It is a logical fallacy and not at all what is meant by 'experience.' Los Angeles has never had an experience of any kind. The people of Los Angeles "experience" earthquakes. This misuse of the term is particularly rampant in Bo's SOL but it is also deep in Platt's understanding and especially in dmb's Top Down view of a supernatural consciousness pervading the universe. Objects do not have experiences. He really doesn't spell out well what the other two meanings are other than his own conception of experience as Dynamic Quality. But he does shed light on a particularly pernicious idea that circulates this forum frequently. Dynamic Quality is not some untouchable mystical concept that cannot and should not be defined. I think a number of contributors here should print this one out and stick on their refrigerators: RMP: Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it. Right on, Bob! I couldn't have said it better myself although I have tried many, many times. Krimel ------------------------------------------------------- 57. In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from experience. Annotation 57 (Appendix) RMP In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from experience. DG: Could you elaborate on what you mean by "independently of matter"? I can see that time is dependent on experience but am having a difficulty with the rest of your first sentence, especially in the context of your second sentence. RMP: I think the trouble is with the word, "experience." It can be used in at least three ways. It can be used as a relationship between an object and another object (as in Los Angeles experiencing earthquakes.) It is more commonly used as a subject-object relationship. This relationship is usually considered the basis of philosophic empiricism and experimental scientific knowledge. In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a preexisting object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or object. Experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. Change is probably the first concept emerging from this Dynamic experience. Time is a primitive intellectual index of this change. Substance was postulated by Aristotle as that which does not change. Scientific "matter" is derived from the concept of substance. Subjects and objects are intellectual terms referring to matter and nonmatter. So in the MOQ experience comes first, everything else comes later. This is pure empiricism, as opposed to scientific empiricism, which, with its pre-existing subjects and objects, is not really so pure. I hope this explains what is said above, "In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from experience." DG: Yes, this does help, thank you. What bothers me slightly-I am sure I am not seeing it in the proper light yet-is how experience can be synonymous with Dynamic Quality? Isn't experience that which we define? RMP: Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it. 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/ 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/
