Hi David, Thanks for simplifying the discussion. My comments follow. On 2/22/12, David Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I snipped this section to see if we can get at the crux of the issue. > >>> dmb says: >>> In the preceding paragraph Pirsig explains that "he used this example >>> because his chief questioners seemed to see things in terms of >>> stimulus-response behavior theory". He says this sort of explanation was >>> "easiest intellectual analog of pure Quality that people in our >>> environment >>> can understand". Also, despite the fact that he's explaining this in >>> terms a >>> behaviorist can understand, the substance of his claim strikes a direct >>> hit >>> against the myth of the given. Think about it. If every last bit of >>> reality >>> is an invented analog, then everything is constructed and nothing is >>> given. >> >> Mark: >> Yes, I agree with dmb, if I am interpreting correctly what he is >> writing. Reality is not invented, it is realized in a manner which we >> humans find useful. We are simply interpreters of the given. If >> somebody interprets Spanish into English, this does not mean that the >> English is not something similar to the Spanish. It does not somehow >> make the English unreal. Our interpretation as presented through sq >> is as direct as the DQ which is being interpreted. To say that such >> analogue is somehow separate from the given is not correct. Our >> ability to think is very real, as real as the hardness of steel. We >> cannot say that we are "imagining" steel to be hard, or we once again >> get lost in the distractions of logic. > > Dave > And my understanding is that dmb, Wilbur, maybe Pirsig, and many other > philosophers of this bent are saying that from a human POV there is no given > per se, reality it is built up individually and collectively as time goes > on. They start with "humans experience" as the most basic element. After the > fact build up a collections of "what is experienced" that allows them to > make claims about "reality," but these claims always fall short of "what > truly is." They are only good in so far as they're useful, practical. Then > from those experiences some can deduce that there must be "pure experience" > or "dynamic quality" which is much more vast and complete than their limited > experiences. At the end of this process many come to the conclusion that > "reality" is best described by form of realism, often scientific realism. > But there is no "reality" given prior to the experiencing and describing of > those experiences. I understand why this may be a technically more correct > description of what happens or has happened to human understanding. But I > think a "given" universe with me an integral part of it is much less > confusing. I can't imagine how to teach children in grade school the MoQ > when people here, many with college degrees, can't come to any common > agreement on what he says, let alone what he means. So I agree that Lila > confuses more than clarifies. And ZatAoMM, while intriguing, makes > claims,IMHO, that in the end will not and cannot be verified. Very similar, > IMHO, to the God hypothesis. > > Dave
Hi Dave, Well I agree with what you say (I thin), and you indeed present what happens if the view of "experience as reality" is taken to an extreme conclusion. As humans, most of our "reality" is not due to things that we experience, but to things that we learn. I have never experienced the earth orbiting the sun, for example. This is the strength of learning and the application of the imagination. That is, to find "real", things that we read in books. However, this has its shortcomings when one assumes that such writings are Truth, rather than just an agreed on opinion. Besides, what do I care if the earth orbits the sun or vice versa? The flat earth works just as well for me; we just "magically" end up at the same place if we keep going West. The why of such a thing is really superfluous to daily activity, but is a fun activity. If usefulness is a measure of a presentation of reality, then science is certainly a good method to use for a presentation of such. We have to assume that scientists are truthful in what they report, which is not always the case in messy day to day science. Typically those reality presentations that survive are better, but just look at the dark ages that Aristotle provided with his "earth-centric" statements. We have similar hypothesis (or is it hypothesi?) these days which are equally misleading such as the expanding universe that started with a bang of some kind. Science, if turned into scientism can also be abused when the claim is "Scientists say such and such". For example: Hot Off The Press!! Scientists say that God does not exist!! Just look to Dawkins or Hawkins for examples (interesting that "awk" is in both their names which is also found in awkward...). Such Scientism is no better that reality as presented by the Aztec priests, or L. Ron Hubbard, but no worse either. So, I am all for a "given universe" in that sense. Given by what we experience. We need go no farther than that. However, we would lose much technology and progress in that view. As a given, there is indeed reality before our experience, just not our experience. For, we have to experience something, don't we. Personally I experience Quality for I see its existence between two different apples. This is a simple paradigm shift (on paper anyway). That is to not look at objects as having quality, but as objects being given quality. This happens when we look at the cause for two apples appearing different. That cause lies "between" the two apples and not with the apples themselves. I have posted on this a number of times over the years. This view of Quality relegates the subject object viewpoint to an effect rather than the cause. Indeed Zen training is to drop the subject object paradigm, at least during meditation, because the SO division does come naturally to us humans, so why say it is bad? That God cannot be proven does not bother me, and I am a scientist. God is a personal relationship with the cosmos. It cannot be measured, but it can certainly bring much meaning to those that understand this. Quality cannot be proven either, so what? Most things cannot be measured, and we do not want to enclose ourselves in only that which is measureable. Any proof is an agreement. We can "prove" that gravity exists only by definition. That is, we define gravity as an attractive force between objects. Then we notice that objects attract. Then we say that gravity "exists", when all we have done is define what we mean by gravity. This is no different from any proof, so let us not give too much credence to proofs. They are fabrications of the intellect to pretend we "understand". We do not "understand", we create understanding. From the ground up, which has nothing to do with the ground itself. In my opinion ZZZAMMMM!!! is a story, a chataqua, if you will. It does not provide claims in the scientific sense of things, it is an expression of an opinion. We can either agree or disagree, but that does not detract from it being an opinion. There is no need for any verification, unless one tries to make a metaphysics out of it. This was a mistake in my opinion, except to give us a framework in which to talk. Lila should also be seen as a story, or even a picture. We each get something meaningful out of a picture. That is where its power lies. A single quote from Lila is like pointing out a single brush stroke from a painting and saying "see, I told you so". Marsha is pretty good at finding brush strokes and then claiming something or other. Usually something that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. But I digress, and I only put that in there so that Marsha does not get lonely or too whacked out on her steroids. Yes, Marsha, I think of you all the time. So, I am not sure if I agree or disagree with what you mean, since I only have the words from your paragraph which I brought to life in my head. My hope is that I agree. Cheers, 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 > 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
