Hi Roger, Kevin, Magnus and Group:
With great interest I've been following the discussion that Roger kicked
off early last month�to succinctly define and relate Pirsig's key words:
Quality, Dynamic Quality, Static Quality and Quality Event.
The 13 Principles of the MoQ that I enumerated in my post dated 11
March appear to have come through the discussion unscathed if not
actually affirmed. So long as we agree that "awareness," "observation,"
"experience" and "consciousness" are all more or less synonymous, it
appears we're in agreement that in Pirsig's metaphysics atoms are
indeed aware, albeit on their terms. And, as Kevin so aptly summed up in
his post of 2 April, the MoQ effectively puts an end to the Idealism vs.
Realism debate because "Dynamic Quality unifies both subject and
object into one value."
Furthermore, I completely agree with Kevin's take on reality:
> Metaphysically reality is both subject and object simulatenously.
> Consciousness (subject) is found in all reality. Indeed, even an atom is
> both a subject and an object. As Pirsig writes:
>
> "Mind is contained in static inorganic patterns. Matter is contained in
> static intellectual patterns. Both mind and matter are completely separate
> evolutionary levels of static patterns and as such are capable of each
> containing the other without contradiction." (p178, pb-Bantam)
>
> You seem to be narrowing the definition of consciousness. We all agree the
> universe is created solely of values and that a thing which has no value
> doesn't exist. But every "value" has a consciousness of its own value.
Nothing helped me understand the role of "observation" and
"consciousness" in Pirsig's metaphysics more than the following
examples provided by Magnus in January:
"The MoQ says that the moon does not exist independent of observation.
The observer however doesn't have to be a person, or an instrument
made by man. It can be any static pattern. The moon is very real to a
meteor coming too close; it makes the meteor stop quite abruptly . . . If
observation means "someone observing something else," there is a
problem. Because then the reality for that someone becomes only the
things that someone observes. But if observation means "two patterns of
value engaged in a Quality Event," then the ice falling off the edges of the
Antarctic glacier a few seconds ago because as real as your reading
these words."
Thus, the MoQ answers that hoary philosophical question of whether a
tree falling in the forest makes a sound with no one around to hear it with
a resounding, "Absolutely." And there goes Realism and the precious
"independent reality" of scientific orthodoxy into the ash heap of mistaken
worldviews along with "the world is flat."
You would think that the discovery of the observer-dependent quantum
world would annihilate the idea of an independent reality once and for all.
But, with the exception of quantum physicists and few others, the
scientific community and most of intellectual elite still assume they can
determine reality as if they weren't a part of it. As Pirsig's friend
Dusenberry says, "There's this pseudo-science myth that when you're
'objective' you just disappear from the face of the earth and see
everything undistorted, as it really is, like God from heaven. But that's
rubbish."
Now as the discussion turns to Pragmatism I simply want to thank all
those who responded to Roger's challenge for a high level, high quality
and most illuminating conversation.
Platt
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
