[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] Thanks Andre, That makes sense to me, experiential reality, and I see it the same way. I believe there are some that hold Quality to a higher standard. And yes, I remember the Gravity metaphor from ZMM. I am like you and have been thinking about Quality for over 30 years now, with certain side tracks of course. If I read through old posts, I find the framework confusing and opposing. This is why I appreciate some guidance. Typically I do not spend too much time on one philosophical subject because then my "beginner's mind" begins to harden. I am more for free association type of thinking. Experience is certainly a primary factor. The way I read Ham, is that he is talking more about consciousness (please jump in Ham). That is, how is it that our consciousness is able to somehow seem to stand on its own (or at least appear to, pardons to Gautama)? Whence does it come and how does it work? I believe this is something that Heidegger dealt with in kind of a poetic, circular, and annoying way (IMHO). The notion that things do not exist without observation could be interpreted from Q, and indeed has. Such conclusions, however, are provisionary. It doesn't conform with common sense, because there was a world before us according to geologist. There is nothing wrong with that either, if it provides meaning to ones thoughts and structure. But the leap may be difficult. The subject-object conundrum I have dealt with in another post, and I believe there is confusion of a subject-object with an object-object metaphysics. In my understanding, Gautama put sentience in a higher category. This was before we had a better understanding of biology in general. For example, is a virus sentient? They did not know about bacteria at that time, etc. There is a lot of grey area which cannot just be dismissed. I believe G's interpretation would be different now; we are products of the times, and Gautama had centuries of Vedic thought to build on, which is lost in the Western world. My interpretation is that consciousness exists at the different levels. We can no more fathom the consciousness of a society than a cell can comprehend the consciousness of a human body. In this way, it is possible to assign value to all forms. I do find the level hierarchy troubling, but not insurmountable. One need not accept all the premises, they are just analogies after all. I only caution against Buddhism because it can really confuse the issue, at least for me. It is indeed proper to provide pathways to other forms of thought, in order to increase understanding. My understanding of Buddhism is of course limited (at least to this lifetime I think :-)), and I find that much of what is being said does not conform to my understanding. My approach to the similarities in path to radical empiricism would be to try to draw similarities between the Noble Eightfold Path as laid out ad nauseam on the internet, and the tools used by radical empiricism. One can obviously spend a lifetime studying both alone. Now my understanding of radical empiricism is not strong enough to do that, but others may be able to do so. I can certainly provide interpretations of the Noble path since I have studied that for a bit longer. I have made comparisons of the Buddhist path with other more mundane (corporate) paths. Just to liven up the workplace. Thanks for the discussion, Mark 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
