Hi Roger, Jonathan, Marco, Marty, Elephant, all:
PLATT(previously to Roger)
My guess is that such sentences are too metaphorically strong for your
liking and thus present a false picture. Instead of �awareness� would
you accept Whitehead�s much less provocative word �prehension� to
describe a particle�s response to an observation or an atom�s
sensitivity to its environment?
ROG:
Sure. No problem.
PLATT:
If Roger had posted this response early on, much of the ensuing
argument over �aware� might have been avoided. �Prehension� is
defined in my dictionary as �apprehension by the senses,� and
�apprehension� is defined as �the act or power of perceiving or
comprehending.� Atoms perceive? OK by me.
ROG:
To stay clean, I would stick with �values� or �value patterns� and I would
avoid any of the above three terms (awareness, choice, sense).
PLATT:
�Atoms value� is also OK��to value� meaning �to consider or rate
highly� Likewise, �atoms prefer, meaning �to like better or best.� (The
quotation marks around �prefer� cited by Elephant as meaning that
Pirsig really didn�t mean it is a red herring. Pirsig uses �prefer� without
quotation marks several times when talking about an atom�s
characteristics. Ex: �Phaedrus thought this ambiguity of carbon�s
bonding PREFERENCES was the situation the weak Dynamic forces
needed. Lila, Chap. 11, emphasis added.)
JONATHAN:
Electrons are au courant.
PLATT:
I like it.
MARTY:
Consciousness should not be thought of as self awareness, but can
be seen as the ability to move towards quality, to �recognize� the quality
route. . . . Consciousness . . . is the context in which everything exists.
Atoms, like everything else, operate within that context and behave
accordingly.
PLATT
Atoms �recognize the quality route.� Yes.
MARCO:
We are the experience of DQ. And atoms, as well, are the inorganic
experience of DQ.
PLATT
Atoms �experience� DQ. Good.
MARCO:
So, what does it mean to be aware? IMOE (in My Own English) it�s �to
well know how to do� without the need of external guidance.
�And what is good, Phaedrus
And what is not good.
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?�
This, IMO, the Q-awareness.
PLATT:
Atoms �have Q-awareness� i.e., they have �inner knowledge� of what�s
good without the need of external guidance. I agree.
A comment by Anthony McWatt in his paper in the Forum may help to
put all this in perspective:
�i.e. preference is seen as being on a continuum rather than suddenly
manifesting itself at the human level. In the MOQ, the higher up the
evolutionary ladder you go (from sub-atomic particles to people) the
more freedom you have in making preferences. This is why generally a
person�s experience will be that much richer and complex than a dog�s
while the dog�s experience will be that much better than a tree�s which
will be better than a piece of rock�s and so on.�
So when I say �atoms are aware,� I�m talking about a very low level of
awareness. Similarly, atoms don�t experience all that we or even
viruses do. On the continuum McWatt speaks of, atoms have very
limited experience indeed.
Perhaps Jonathan�s �au courant� gets this idea across as well as
anything suggested so far, though I�d prefer an English phrase. Maybe
there are other expressions we can use that ascribe value-sensitivity to
atoms without, like Frankenstein, bringing them to life to Roger�s
horror. As far as I know, the English language doesn�t have a word for
a barely experienced experience. Suggestions welcome.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
