Greetings Hm, Having had a few episodes, there is no reason for me to doubt the possibility of unpatterned, or direct, experiences. Based on experience, I am suggesting such experiences are possible, but I do not feel compelled to convince you of anything that you are inclined to think impossible.
Marsha On Dec 28, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > > Hi again, Marsha -- > > >> I am not sure I understand what you are stating. I am calling >> unpatterned experience or direct experience, as I understand, >> maybe mistakenly, Ant's quote to suggest, experience without >> patterns of interpretation. The MoQ has the experience (value) >> coming before the projection of the observer and the object, >> and I find that one need not necessarily project them at all. > > I seem to be having difficulty explaining "experience" to you and John. > Perhaps it is the special meaning of "pattern" or "direct experience" used by > the Pirsigians that impedes your understanding. > >> I choose 'unpatterned experience' as not to embellish the >> experience in any way. > > "Embellishing the experience" is not the problem, Marsha. There is no such > thing as "generic experience", anyway. That is, you can't have an experience > of a "general nature." That's like being "generally" alive or "generally" > pregnant. Each and every experience is the awareness of a particular > phenomenon. The problem is that what has been called "direct experience (of > Value)" is a misnomer. We do not "experience" absolute or undifferentiated > value. All experience is directly delineated, immanent, and relative to the > subjective self. > > The apple on the kitchen table is a visual phenomenon. It is the objective > representation (subjective "interpretation") of personal values that relate > to your esthetic or gustatory sensibilities. These are all "immediately > aware" to you upon observing the apple. When you bite into the apple, you > have another experience. The sweetness or tartness, texture and succulence > of the apple are the "qualia" you experience proprioceptively (internally) as > you eat it. Your experience of the apple and its composite attributes are, I > believe, what Pirsig means by a "pattern of Quality". But the pattern does > not exist until you experience it, which is why he calls experience "the > cutting edge of reality." It is the individual's value-sensibility that > actualizes the object by experiencing it differentially. The cumulative > experience of an individual's being-in-the-world is that individual's > existential reality. > > Now, the example Pirsig gives of "direct" or "pre-intellectual" experience is > the pain one feels when sitting on a hot stove This is a proprioceptive > response to physiological injury. If you are the stove-sitter, you feel the > burning of your behind; no one else does. Otherwise, there is no difference > between internally felt and externally objectivized experiences > > The fact that an experience may or may not involve "intellect" is irrelevant > to this epistemology. I suppose my enjoyment of a Tchaikovsky symphony > involves some intellectual activity, whereas eating an apple doesn't. But so > what? It's still an experience -- or, in Pirsig's terms, a Quality pattern. > > If this doesn't make the epistemology clearer, tell me where you think the > problem lies. > > Thanks, Marsha. > > --Ham > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > >>> On Dec 28, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Marsha V. wrote: >>> >>>> Greetings Ham, >>>> >>>> Can there be experience _without_ picking up the thread of >>>> mental chatter or an analytical thread? Yes! Ant's statement >>>> is perfect. Perfect. Perfect. Perfect. It seems more a matter >>>> of awareness of such experiences. >>>> >>>> "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] >>> >>> What you redundantly praise as "perfect" is the fact that Ant's statement >>> applies to ALL experience. The "immediate" act of experience and the >>> awareness of something are one and the same phenomenon. Likewise, being >>> aware is contingent upon a cognizant observer and a referent object. >>> Experiential reality is a dualism of value-sensibility (subjective >>> awareness) and objectivized being (otherness). >>> >>> You'll note that Pirsig and I agree that the ground of_existence_is Value >>> (Quality). But value-sensibility is_our_essence, not the Essence of >>> Reality. We do not "experience" Value directly. Value must be realized >>> (made sensible) by an independent agent in order to exist (to be >>> experienced as finite phenomena). And, since Existence is differentiated >>> from Value in the "act" or process of experience, Existence and Essence are >>> not synomous. >>> >>> Pirsig's "metaphysics" never transcended existence. His Quality hierarchy >>> is based entirely on the experiential (phenomenal) realm Euphemizing >>> physical existence as experienced patterns of Dynamic Quality does not >>> eliminate subject/object duality. >>> >>> Thanks, Marsha. And best wishes for the new year, >>> Ham >>> >>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>> >>>> 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", and I distinguish it from >>>> value-sensibility which is primary to experience and esthetic or >>>> emotional (rather than "intellectual") in nature. Unfortunately, MoQ's >>>> author failed to make this distinction. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
