Platt, Ron, John, et al --
Platt to John:
If we can keep in mind that the MOQ consists of static
value pattern levels plus DQ, then perhaps Bo's interpretation
will be better understood.
Ron:
If S/O division of reality is direct experience, as you state above,
it conflicts with the ZMM conclusion that value is direct
experience and S/O division is a culturally dominant idea.
If S/O is indeed reality (direct experience) then why would we
change our "metaphysical" assumptions based on it since it
would then theoretically cover all of direct experience?
Why switch from SOM to MoQ?
Platt:
But it doesn't cover "all of direct experience" as Pirsig clearly states.
It doesn't cover value. S/O constricts direct experience to subjects
and objects. MOQ corrects that nearsightedness.
Ron:
How does MoQ account for value if S/O is intellect?
Platt
Direct experience.
Ron:
You said that was S/O division
Platt
All divisions originate from direct experience. S/O is one division.
But, it excludes values. The MOQ is another division -- DQ/SQ.
But it includes values.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!
Who said that S/O excludes values? I appreciated values long before I ever
heard of MOQ, and so did you all. When you fall in love, you value your
beloved. If you love music, you don't have to channel into some DQ mode to
experience its value. Indeed, how could you enjoy music without hearing it
sung or played on a musical instrument? That, my friends, is the value of
S/O existence.
Yet, Platt says "S/O constricts direct experience to subjects and objects."
The deception in this assertion is that there is a distinction between
"common" experience and "direct" experience, when in fact ALL experience is
S/O experience.
If nothing else, subjects are "experiencers" and everything of value is
associated with the experiential (objective) world. Unexperienced value is
an oxymoron, or, as Pirsig himself said: "If a thing has no value it doesn't
exist." Of course it's conceivable that you could imagine a value that
isn't experienced, and you might even call it 'DQ', but where is the
justification for positing it as Reality? (And Pirsigians are paranoid
about faith-based theories?)
We are all value-sensible creatures. Value is what binds us to the
essential Source. But we don't "experience" value per se. Cognitive
experience is the differentiation of value into things and events (i.e.,
"value patterns") that constitute our space/time world. Our realization of
value--consciously, emotionally, sensually, and intellectually--relates
directly to this experience. In short, common experience is as "direct" as
human beings ever get to Value.
Essentially speaking,
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/md/archives.html
