Ham to Andre: If a thing doesn't exist because we have never observed it, then it is our observation (i.e., experience) that "creates" the thing.
Andre: Not quite Ham and it's a pity you do not have the quote in your 'softback edition'. 'Experience' doesn't 'create' anything in a strict sense. The creating, which I would rather call 'abstracting' (following Anthony's terminology used in his thesis)follows the 'experience'. This is the interplay of DQ/sq. I will clarify this below but must first of all place the quote in context. Pirsig was talking about the activity called science, conventional subject-object science: 'Science values static patterns. Its business is to search for them. When non-conformity appears it is considered an interruption of the normal rather than the presence of the normal. A deviation from a normal static pattern is something to be explained and if possible controlled. The reality science explains is that 'reality' which follows mechanisms and programs. That other worthless stuff which doesn't follow mechanisms and programs we don't pay any attention to' (LILA, p 146) Then follows the rest which you considered 'worth analyzing'. In other words we don't 'observe' it because we do not value it. And this refers to the following quote which places it in another context: 'The experience of Dynamic Quality is the same for everyone, it is only the experiences and objects which are mentally associated with the experience which are different... [i.e.] judgements concerning the same thing are often different because each person has a unique life history of different static patterns. As both Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence the final judgments this 'is why there is some uniformity among individual value judgments but not complete uniformity' (Anthony's PhD, p 71) I think somewhere Pirsig uses the example of buying a car and you thinking you're the only one to have such make and model. You take it on the free-way and you see lots of them where you had never noticed, observed them before...because you did not value this particular car until you had bought it. Ham: So Pirsig's assertion that "the reason we have never looked for it is that it is unimportant" makes no sense, unless something other than the observer determines what is important. Andre: I hope I have clarified it for you. Ham: I assume the author wants us to believe that it is Quality, not the observing subject, which makes this determination. Andre: See above. Ham: This illustrates how Pirsig misconstrues epistemology to support his Quality thesis.For if the cosmos or 'Quality universe' predetermines what is important or valuable, then man has no choice in the matter and is in effect a slave of Quality. Andre: Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. And Pirsig is quite clear on the freedom/deterministic platypus. Ham: However you assess my comprehension of Pirsig, I have never advanced a "subject-object essence". Andre: Talking about the difference of 'observer' and something to be 'observed', 'sensible agent' and something to be 'sensed', 'knower' and something to be 'known' as though they are fundamentally separate leads me to believe you are operating essentially from the (Cartesian) subject-object dichotomy. Ham: I suspect you know this intuitively, and this only adds to your frustration. Andre: No, I am not frustrated Ham. It is just that it seems to me that you are here because you find plenty of things of value here. Otherwise you wouldn't be here which is rather funny when you think about it in the context of your rejection of Pirsig's MOQ. Cheers 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
