Mark to Andre:
If we are talking about the beginning in terms of universe creation (as
the Word implies), then I have the following question: Does MOQ
necessarily need a beginning to function. Are the same premises valid in
a universe that has always existed and is changingf (the Static
Universemodel)?
Andre:
Hi Mark. I'll give you a few MOQ ideas which may clarify:
'The MOQ holds that experience is the starting point'. (Annotn 31)
'In the MOQ, nothing exists prior to the observation. The observation
creates the patterns called 'observed' and 'observer'. Think about it.
How could a subject and object exist in a world where there are no
observations'(Annotn 65)
Notice here that Pirsig does not ask how there can be an observer
without anything being observed (as Ham does)or ,for that matter how
there can be anything thing to be observed without an observer (this
would set up a contradiction in terms because it would beg the question).
The MOQ starts with sentience and in this sense it would agree with
Siddhartha Gautama be silent on 'beginnings'. The MOQ accepts the idea
of a 'big bang' beginning. It accepts this as a high quality
intellectual pattern of value but, of course is provisional.
Mark:
Secondly, there is personal experience and there is vicarious
experience,and there is abstract experience, among others. Would a
mystical experience be included in radical empiricism?
Andre:
Absolutely. If you read ZMM and LILA you'll find that the 'mystical'
experience is responsible for Phaedrus abandoning his classic-romantic
split of dividing Quality in favour of the more inclusive DQ/sq
split.(LILA,pp112-9). This, by the way, has also had some significant
implications for Phaedrus' ideas about the
function/role/action/participation of the intellectual level
I would suggest, but stand corrected, that radical empiricism and the
Buddhist 'path to enlightenment' have very strong similarities. I
haven't thought this through enough yet though, but maybe an interesting
path to pursue.
Mark:
I wouldn't bring Buddhism in unless you know what you are talking
about,that statement is misleading and open to all sorts of interpretations.
Andre:
I just did and am interested in hearing your views.
Mark:
Artificial would imply created by the mind, kind of like a constellation is
artificial. It seems that radical empiricism can tend towards Scientific
Materialism or Positivism. In your opinion, is this a correct
interpretation? I can always learn.
Andre:
What I meant by forcing parts into a unity ( a One, an Absolute) is fine so
long as the construction can be verified through experience. This is the touch
stone of pragmatism and the rigorousness of radical empiricism. Claim anything
you want but make it experimentally verifiable. This is the MOQ's test of
truth, this is the MOQ's scientific approach. (and I do not need to remind you
that the basis i.e.the fundamental reality out of which the MOQ emerged is
indeed DQ/sq).
Scientific materialism and Idealism have been united within the MOQ, each given
their due, their place and their role and thus, withing the MOQ umbrella, their
limitations.
And I do want to emphasize here Mark that I am battling as hard as you are to
get as much mileage out of the MOQ as Mr. Pirsig had intended. It is occupying
a large part of my life. I do not know or understand all and everything. That
is what we are here for on this discuss.
I think I have a fair grasp on what it is not ( which is useful) but everyday
something will pop up and will remind me of a word or sentence of either ZMM or
LILA and connect these to moment-to-moment experiences of which our days
consist, and illumine those parts least expected. And then revitalize oneself
with gumption.
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
