Craig --
Some parts of the universe--like bridges or paintings--would not exist
in the "absence of sensible agents". But on closer inspection they are
made
of metal & oil which not only predate humans but all life forms on earth.
Pirsig's insight was that the universe that is not directly observed could
consist of quarks, strings or m-branes; have electrons with circular
orbits
or shells; have 4 or 17 dimensions--in short, whatever works.
But from the fact that we create the STRUCTURE of the universe that
best explains it, it doesn't follow that we create the universe itself or
that it wouldn't exist without us.
To me the "structure" of the universe is the same as its perceived
attributes and properties. I see no difference between "bridges or
paintings" and mountains or trees as physical objects. Just because humans
build bridges and Nature builds mountains doesn't change the nature of
objects. Pirsig's "insight" that quarks, strings, or "whatever works"
constitute a "non-observable universe" is, in my opinion, a holdover from
materialism. Why equivocate? Either he believes experience creates the
universe or he doesn't. I happen to believe it does. To speculate that
quantum particles are exceptions simply because they are too small to
"directly observe" is a specious argument that defeats the very theory he's
positing.
Like Bodvar, you view space/time as the inviolable habitat of substantive
entities. That's dialectical materialism, no matter how you disguise it. I
maintain that existence itself (including time and space) is the mode of
human experience, that we construct this phenomenal system from our own
value-sensibility, and thus "create" our own reality. Is that ontogeny too
bizarre for Pirsigians? If Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist at UCLA,
could express his belief that Consciousness is the fundamental reality, how
extreme is the position that Value is the essence of existence? Pirsig had
the opportunity to posit Quality as the primary source, thus affording a
metaphysical foundation for his thesis. He chose Experience instead in
deference to the positivists. As a consequence, MOQists must adapt to the
notion that experience is indigenous to inanimate objects like rocks and
atoms
I understand your reasoning and appreciate your response, Craig. I just
don't subscribe to the sanctity of objective reality.
Best regards,
Ham
/
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/
