Greetings,
See how easily he dismisses the paradox to suit one particular interpretation:
His.
Here is something by David Bohm that hints at the confusion:
"Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we
believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive
depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think.
What we think depends on what we perceive. What we perceive determines
what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What
we take to be true is our reality."
(Mathieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan, 'The Quantum and the Lotus:
A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet', p.121)
Marsha
On Mar 23, 2013, at 4:53 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> dmb said:
> There is no such thing as a preconceptual [tree]. It's one of "the forms
> which we make" and DOES NOT YET exist in "the basic flux of experience".
>
> Pirsig said:
> "You can't be aware that you've seen a tree until after you've seen the tree,
> and between the instant of vision and instant of awareness there must be a
> time lag. . . The tree that you are aware of intellectually, because of that
> small time lag, is always in the past." (Pirsig, ZAMM)
>
>
>
> Craig Erb asked:
> How do we reconcile these 2 quotes. On the one hand, the tree is only in the
> FUTURE, after experience. On the other hand, the tree is in the past BEFORE
> intellectual awareness. IMHO there are 2 varieties of the MoQ: anthrocentric
> MoQ (AMoQ) and pan-experiential MoQ (PMoQ). In AMoQ spov's emerge from the
> experience of humans. In PMoQ spov's emerge from their own experience:
> amoebae back away from acid and iron filings value movement toward magnets,
> without humans being involved.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> The Pirsig quote comes from the middle of ZAMM, where he's trying to explain
> Quality in terms that could be understood by the faculty in Bozeman, who were
> behaviorists. So I don't think there are two varieties of the MOQ so much as
> there are simple and sophisticated ways to express this idea. In Lila, where
> the levels of static quality are organized into an evolutionary hierarchy, it
> is very tempting to conceive of them as evolving and emerging long before
> humans came along to experience them but that is a huge mistake. That way of
> taking it would convert the MOQ back into SOM because the world would be
> conceived as an external pre-existing reality, an objective reality by a new
> name.
>
>
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
