Hello everyone On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Dan, > > Matt said: > I think that we believe, as a high-valued intellectual pattern, that > "there exists there exists a world apart from us" is true. > > Dan said: > How does reality exist apart from experience? > > Matt: > Same way that this is true: "The way I read it, since the MOQ states > reality begins with Dynamic Quality experience, it is the idea that > reality exists that comes before the existence of reality." > > You said that in the earlier part of your post to explain how "reality > existed before we personally did" within the frame of the MoQ. So if > one is moved to say a variation of the statement "well, Don, you > know reality does exist apart from our direct experience of it," the > explanation of this statement is not a metaphysical variant of SOM, > but rather that Don, for some reason, was suggesting that his dog's > food dish didn't exist when he wasn't in the room with it (and then > all the attendant worries about whether his dog was starving to > death).
Dan: How does Don know if his dog's food dish exists when he's apart from experiencing it? It seems a bit like the zen koan that asks of a tree falls in the forest with no one around does it make a sound? I think RMP answers that along the lines of: what food dish? But what exactly does that mean? It seems to indicate that imaginary trees and dog dishes exist only in the mind. We learn to assume the dog dish exists even when there is no empirical evidence of its existence. In the same way we assume there is a history to the world that existed before we personally appeared and will continue to exist after we pass away even though there is no way to empirically verify this notion. Whether or not Don's dog dish exists apart from the empirical evidence of its existence is a question rooted in the conviction that there is a real world out there. Take away that conviction and all that is left is the imagination. >Matt: > How does reality exist apart from experience? Well, not in any > metaphysical way, but only in the high-value assumption way we use > to deal with retail items like dog dishes, baby cribs, and downtown > supermarkets. Our dogs are getting fed when we leave the room, > our babies are still resting albeit fitfully when we aren't there, and > it's generally safe to plan your visit downtown around the assumption > that the Safeway is still there. Dan: Right... we use these high quality ideas to navigate a reality that would be otherwise incomprehensible. Folk with OCD's seem to have problems implementing these ideas and overly concern themselves with: did I turn off the tea kettle? did I lock the door? did I feed the dog? And so they continually find themselves going back to empirically verify that they did these things, sometimes over and over again. "Normal" people have learned to assume with conviction that they did feed Fido, that they did turn off the tea kettle, that they did lock the door, and they go on their way without a second thought. These people are the hardest to convince that a concrete reality doesn't exist apart from the experience of it. Of course it does. What they fail to discern is that the reality that exists is imaginary. > > Dan said: > in ZMM, Robert Pirsig seems to more fully embrace idealism while in > LILA he makes it clear that a metaphysics needs to address the > fundamentals of both materialism and idealism. > > Matt: > I think that's not a bad way of describing an arc between the two > books. Dan: Thank you... I think it is interesting to note the evolution of RMP's thinking over the years not only in the period between ZMM and LILA but in the twenty years since LILA'S publication as well. Reading over some of his annotations in LILA'S CHILD as well as his notes to Ant it seems that he is still tweaking the MOQ, adding nuances to it that heretofore might have escaped his attention. It seems best to allow ourselves that same latitude... not to be too certain about any aspect of philosophy or of life. > > Dan said: > Most philosophy (to me) is so dull and dry that it puts me to sleep. I > think that's why I enjoy Robert Pirsig's work... he takes philosophy > and puts it into a story. He makes it interesting. In past moments I've > made a real effort at reading James, Kant, Hegel, Royce, Sartre, > Rand, etc., but to no avail. I cannot seem to get past the first few > pages. So my debating any of them is rather pointless. I leave that to > others... > > Matt: > Thanks for not thinking that I was intentionally trying to say > something obscurantist to you (for some attributed motivation that > remains obscure to me). I just say things sometimes. Usually > whatever comes to mind. Dan: You're welcome... I do the same. I didn't take it as obscurantist. I understand you have more of a formal background in philosophy than do I. I appreciate that and I learn much from your writings over the years. Thank you, Dan 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
