Mornin' Ham,
> The ambiguity in these statements is easily resolved by regarding
> experience as "patterned awareness" and sensibility as the emotive state
> induced by pure (unpatterned) Value.
Unpatterned Value makes as little sense to my thinking as unpatterned
experience. I guess I have a problem with all "un" patterns. I can't
conceptualize such a thing and any attempt to analogize it just ends up
obviating the UN, is my problem.
> Pirsig's
> holdout for direct ("pre-intellectual") experience to support his
> transcendental Quality is the cause of this confusion, and it has led to
> incomprehensible descriptions like this:
> "Immediate experience is experience where there is no distinction between
> what is experienced and the act of experiencing itself." -- [Anthony McWatt:
> Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality]
>
Hmmm... well that's one way of looking at it I guess. And an interesting
way, no doubt. But it doesn't quite wash, even still.
It might work for me if reformulated thusly: "Immediate experience is
experience where the distinction between what is experienced and the act of
experiencing isn't noticed yet."
It signifies a point before the subject is aware of objectification, no?
But it seems a bit klunky because it begs the question of this all-important
tiny slice of time upon which all else depends.
>
> Epistemologically, experience is clearly both an "act" (which is itself
> differentiated) and the cognizant awareness of "distinctions" or patterns. I
> call experience the process of "objectivizing",
OK. So far, so good. I think you could shorten it a bit, "experience is an
act" says it all. But yeah, I agree with your formulation.
> and I distinguish it from value-sensibility which is primary to experience
> and esthetic or emotional (rather than "intellectual") in nature.
Ok, here is where you've lost me in the past. But more recently, trying to
analogize the situation as a moral compass swinging goodward, equating to
"value-sensibility" does make sense to me. Maybe we're on the same page
here after all.
And it's the swing toward goodness of this moral-compass/value-sensibility
which is pre-intellectual because intellect itself is form by the past
actions of the compass needle.
> Unfortunately, MoQ's author failed to make this distinction.
>
Well I don't see it as "failure" the way you do. I have a hard time finding
any failings in any of RMP's words, when read in their context. Any
perceived lackings from your point of view are merely the spaces and pauses
in conversation waiting to be filled by the other in the dialogue.
I want to get into this some more, but unfortunately, it's monday, the sun
shines and I have work.
Actually, having work is not unfortunate, quite the opposite! But I'm a bit
short on time so adieu for now.
John
> But more important to philosophy, I think, is the concept that existence is
> a differentiated reality in which All is perceived as "each and every" by a
> subject in relation to its object(s). Every moment, every experience, every
> thought, every idea is differentiated from every other. And the substantive
> ground of this reality is the Value from which we are each estranged at
> birth. We can experience and know only what we construct from this Value --
> good, bad, or indifferent.
>
>
> Yet, the fact that this pluralistic construction is not chaotic but has an
> order (or "intelligence", if you will) that is universally apprehended and
> appreciated strongly implies a creative source that transcends all
> difference and otherness. Although Mr. Pirsig would like us to think of
> this source as DQ, I cannot accept Quality as an absolute. Quality for me
> is only the valuistic "realization" of otherness, and it requires a sensible
> agent. We are all "One in Essence". The source I propose is uncreated,
> unconditional, and beyond experience. It is the essential "not-other" from
> which the appearance of otherness is derived.
>
> I hope this will help to clarify your differences. Thanks for allowing me
> to intrude in this discussion, and let me take this opportunity to wish you
> both a healthful and spiritually fulfilling New Year.
>
> Essentially yours,
> 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/
>
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/
