[Case] I think I side with Platt and Kevin on this one. You can refine your understanding of the interaction of rocks in such a way as to use the term experience.
[Arlo] I think I am refining my understanding to what Pirsig was saying. You may disagree, of course, but I don't think I am out-of-bounds regarding the MOQ. Indeed, I'd say I am the one "in bounds". To define "experience" to exclude inorganic patterns goes against the fundamental principle of "value" underlying all levels. If inorganic patterns do not "experience" inorganic value, then why do they respond the way they do? Saying "value" or "experience" only emerges at the bio-social levels denies, in my opinion, the claim that Quality is the Source. This is just what I had posted to Kevin. Value *must* exist at the inorganic level, and as such inorganic patterns *must* experience said value. Otherwise Quality itself does not exist until we hit the more advanced levels of bio-social patterns. And then we are right back to SOM. Objects that do not experience Quality, and Subjects that do. Quality, then, is a subjective experience against an external value-less world. You and Kevin and Platt can embrace that position, but I don't think it reflects the MOQ, I think it is straightforward SOM. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
