Greetings Dave, Ron, Arlo, and All --
The full heading of this thread is:
"Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ; let's not do that say some
of us."
It was introduced by David Morey on Apr. 30, who suggested:
Let's not divide reality into subjective experience and objective things,
let's see that experience is made up of both static and dynamic quality,
that patterns are just part of experience and are not separate objects
outside of experience.
In the course of the discussion, Ron said:
I'd like to preface again by establishing that I am using this occasion
to sharpen rhetorical skills and hopefully wring a little clarity out of
what we mean when contributors say that what makes Pragmatic truths
verifiable in experience is their success and satisfaction in the stream
of experience.
Experience is all we can say there "is" with any kind of certainty.
But we go a step further and use words like "the good" "betterness"
and "Quality" in our explanations.
In the spirit of clarification, may I suggest that the statement "Experience
is all we can say there 'is' with any kind of certainty" is more properly
expressed as "Experience is all we KNOW", since all knowledge is based on
experience. What "IS" is a different question altogether -- one that
experience does not provide us.
Yet, Ron also said:
Eh, what about the four levels explanation? THAT certainly addresses
preconceptual patterns of value.
To which Arlo retorted:
The four levels of Pirsig's MOQ are POST-experiential.
Arlo is correct in that the four levels are conceptual (i.e.,
intellectualized or hypothesized) constructs derived from experience. S/O
is Experience, with or without the M. And, again, attempting to systemize
experiential reality via reason doesn't lead us to any kind of certainty
about Reality itself.
[Arlo]:
SOM refers to pre-experiential existence; whether you call that which
precedes experience 'objects' or 'patterns' does not matter, it is the
PRE-EXPERIENTIAL assumption that defines SOM, not the use of the word
'object'.
[Ron replies]:
I find hard to explain the meaning of the term without implying a
pre-experiential
"be-ing".
Now that is the first real insight to break through in this latest paper
chase!
Can we logically call "existence" -- whether objects experienced by
subjects, patterns systemized by intellect, or events presumed to have
occurred before the 'now' or beyond the 'here' of consciousness -- that
WHICH IS? In other words, can we say that Ultimate Reality is
unconditional BEING?
Yes, of course we can. But the use of "being" to define the true Reality is
problematic. For, as we all know, "being" is an objective referent in human
understanding. Even the conception of our own individual being forces
selfness into an objective category.
That's why, although many of you don't like the word, I've chosen 'Essence'
to define the fundamental Source.
Nevertheless, this dialogue between Ron and Arlo has succeeded in "wringing
a little clarity" out of the usual Pirsig postulates endlessly circulating
through this forum.
For that I commend all three of you gentlemen.
Essentially speaking,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hello Arlo,
I'd like to preface again by establishing that I am using this occasion to
sharpen
rhetorical skills and hopefully wring a little clarity out of what we mean
when contributers
say that what makes Pragmatic truths verifyable in experience is their
success and
satisfaction in the stream of experience.
Words like "environment" and "nature" are thus rendered as conceptual
catagories.
Experience is all we can say there "is" with any kind of certainty. But we
go a step further
and use words like "the good" "betterness and "Quality" in our explanations.
In the hopes of rescueing an important philosophical discussion on this
subject
and better clarify for everyone what we mean by using the term "SOM",
we can spare alot of posts of posturing and frustration that never really
address the content. THAT being said.......lets address the content..
[Ron]:
Eh, what about the four levels explanation. THAT certainly addresses
preconceptual patterns of value.
[Arlo]:
The four levels of Pirsig's MOQ are POST-experiential.
[Ron replies]:
I think that needs to be highlighted more. Often this gets neglected. But
they do concern pre-experiential experience.
[Ron]
Now to say we sink back to SOM when we begin to theorize beyond the now of
experience...
[Arlo]:
I'm beginning to think that until people can show they understand the term
"SOM", posts where they use this term should be flagged.
"SOM" refers to pre-experiential existence; whether you call that which
precedes experience 'objects' or 'patterns' does not matter, it is the
PRE-EXPERIENTIAL assumption that defines SOM, not the use of the word
'object'.
[Ron replies]:
I find hard to explain the meaning of the term without implying a
pre-experiential "be-ing".
[Arlo]
We "sink back to SOM" when we talk about pre-experiential existence. THAT is
SOM. THAT is why the MOQ is different, radically different, when it proposes
that ALL static quality ("patterns") are POST-experiential.
In "SOM", 'we' experience 'static quality'. In the MOQ, 'static quality'
emerges FROM experience. These are two radically different views, and THIS
is where the "Copernican" revolution of the MOQ is found.
You can argue that a better metaphysics must include pre-experiential
'things/patterns/objects/existence', but we really need to be clear that
this IS "SOM", and that simply not using 'subjects' and 'objects' doesn't
change that.
[Ron]:
And I think that is what Pirsig does when he employs the 4 levels
explanation and evolution. Both concern the usefulness of pre-expeirential
concepts. His terms change but hes talkin SOM in the inorganic and
biological levels which is what often causes quite a bit of confusion around
here, the use of Pirsig quotes becomes contradictory and a whole lot
of key strokes are spilled over a basic clarification of meaning.
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
