Hi Dave, Paul said to Dan: > In context (1), it is stated that the mythos has, in fact, always been > created and sustained by value. Context (2) is working out what the mythos > would consist of if it was based on the assumption that everything in it > was actually patterns of value. > > ...As above, it is correct to say that in context (2) objects and > organisms (as a name for inorganic patterns and biological patterns) exist > independently and prior to human experience. It is not correct to say they > exist independently and prior to experience. > > ...As above, in context (2) experience and human experience are not one > and the same. > > ....The high quality of the assumption that inorganic and biological > patterns exist (i.e. emerge from Dynamic Quality) before humans and > continue to exist independently of us is verified on a daily basis. > > > > > dmb says: > > This is very helpful stuff. If I'm following you, then roughly speaking > these two contexts are ZAMM (1) and LILA (2). In ZAMM the trick is to > establish that [Dynamic] "Quality is the generator of everything we know". > And "everything we know" is talked about in terms of analogies, ghosts, > and the mythos. [Dynamic] "Quality is the source and substance of > everything," Pirsig also says, but, crucially, he says that we invented > these analogies. Man "is a participant in the creation of all things". This > little profundity does not disappear from LILA, exactly, but the focus > shifts to these ghosts and analogies of the mythos. In LILA these humanly > constructed realities are referred to as static patterns and the former > mythos is reconstructed as an evolutionary morality. DQ is still the > generator here but it's outside of the four levels, which are Pirsig's way > of organizing everything in the encyclopedia or "everything we know". > > The four levels are not supposed to be the ultimate Truth or anything. The > MOQ is just an analogy because everything static is just an analogy. In > effect, Pirsig is just saying "it's better to look at things this way". > You'd think it would be easy and familiar because we all have access to the > mythos and the encyclopedia but it's really pretty radical because in > Pirsig's static hierarchy "experience" goes all the way down. The capacity > to respond to DQ goes all the way down, so that even the laws of physics > (inorganic value) are re-conceived as patterns of preference, as a kind of > behavior. This is what you might call panpsychism or panexperientialism. > Pirsig says the empirical data is the same either way. You can think > subatomic particles are mechanically following eternal laws or you can > think they are expressing a very persistent pattern of preference. But this > idea that evolution is driven by preferences gets increasingly easy to > accept by common sense as we move up the scale into the other three levels. > And of course by the time we get to the intellectual level, this > reconstructed mythos is very useful, especially in philosophy and science. > > > > Paul said to Dan: > I think you can't see the difference between the useful subject-object > distinction and subject-object metaphysics. In the former no *ontological* > claim is being made any more than in the useful distinction between say, > liquid and gas. In the latter, one, the other, or a combination of the two > are claimed to be the ontological basis of existence itself. This is a > huge difference, not semantics. For example, I did not say that inorganic > patterns are the basis of existence itself. > > > > dmb says: > > Yes, this is what Pirsig says when he's explaining the radical empiricism > of William James. Subject and Objects are demoted from primary realities to > secondary concepts. > > > "By this (radical empiricism) he (James) meant that subjects and objects > are not the starting points of reality. Subjects and objects are secondary. > They are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he > described as 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to > our later reflection with its conceptual categories'. In this basic flux of > experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, such as those between > consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and matter, have not > yet emerged in the forms wich we make them. Pure Experience cannot be > called either physical or psychical; it logically precedes this > distinction." > > > > Paul said to Dan: > > ... I said "assimilating a mystic experience" by which I mean something > like, having temporarily "left the mythos" one should not see the > shattering of intellectual patterns as some kind of permanent destruction > of "reality." [Paul previously]: I’m suggesting that the MOQ provides the > basis of a reconstructed mythos, not a means of escape from it. And to > reiterate - this reconstructed mythos does contain subjects and objects but > they become taxonomical instead of ontological or epistemological terms, > simply referring to types (i.e. levels) of value, as you know. > > > dmb says: > > Right. Pirsig says anyone who live outside the mythos is insane. If think > you can live outside the mythos, then don't understand what the mythos is, > he says. That's another reason why the 180 degree enlightenment does not > work. That's why LILA still has to have a theory of truth, despite the > rejection of Objective Truth and the rejection of fixed and eternal Truth. > It's not very hard to see how 360 degree enlightenment comes back around to > everyday life and truth becomes a species of value, a particular kind of > evolving static good where DQ is still the generator. "Truth is a static > intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." This 180 > degree enlightenment, wherein these static patterns are more or less > dismissed (as "hypothetical", as illusions, as ghostly in the unreal and > imaginary sense) leads to a relativism, a nihilism and an > anti-intellectualism. >
Thanks, it's good to see your understanding and agreement. cheers Paul 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
