Hello everyone >From: "Hamilton Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [MD] Art of Value >Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:53:20 -0500 > >Greetings Akshay, and Hello Dan -- > >I've just had some off-line conversation with Case, who has expressed >concern about my temporary absence due to a computer crash. (He's proved >to be a true gentleman after all!) Well, I'm still here, and I couldn't >resist commenting on how pathetic is this idea of "leaving a legacy" as the >only hope of human transcendence.
Hi Ham Good to see you back! Thank you for writing. > >Akshay wrote: > > There's an interesting Chinese proverb saying that the way a person >lives > > after death is by his legacy. The MoQ proves this so brilliantly. The > > legacy is [what] a person's static patterns leave over other patterns > > [and] > > are the way those static patterns survive. Within, say, social patterns, > > I believe there are types of sub-patterns. There are patterns for envy, > > for affection, for flattering, et cetera. >Ham: >Surely a philosophy founded on value should suggest a plausible connection >of the individual to "the primary source of empirical reality." Are we to >assume that we "live after death in the 'static patterns' we leave to our >survivors?" If this is our link to reality, of what value is it to us OR >our survivors? I see the deficiency of the MoQ as its failure to make >this >connection. We mortals are swept along in the wave of DQ, but in the end >it >is the wave -- not us -- that prevails. So where is the morality in this >scenario, and what is the point of cognizant existence? Without that, >"evolving to betterness" has no essential meaning. Dan: I believe the MOQ (along with Buddhism) sees the "individual" as an empty concept, literally a figure of speech. There is no connection to be made. In the MOQ, reality is experience. The MOQ subscribes to pure empiricism, but there is no primary source as such. > >[Akshay]: > > By the way, the phrase "life after death" is a contradiction speaking > > strictly logically. > >[Dan]: > > Yes it is. I believe the question was: does consciousness survive the > > death > > of the brain. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet identified >what > > consciousness is or where (or if) it is located in the brain. Does the > > brain > > act as a kind of antenna for consciousness? No one knows. If the brain >is > > indeed the seat of consciousness then when the brain dies, so does > > consciousness. But if the brain acts as an antenna, then perhaps > > consciousness survives in some fashion that we as living beings are >unable > > to comprehend. It is I suppose a mystery that only the dead share. >Ham: >My answer would be that the brain functions as the "instrument" of >conscious >awareness. What we experience is filtered by the brain and nervous system >so that our value-sensibility is limited to a differentiated perspective of >objective otherness. Dan: The MOQ would say that we use what it terms a static filter to sift experience. The "Cleveland harbor effect" comes to mind. >Ham: >This orients the finite creature to its finite world, >a useful and necessary orientation for co-existence with Nature. It's also >what undiscerning people call "the real world." But to equate the >cause-and-effect dynamics of finite objects with ultimate reality is >intellectually naive. >If Quality (or Value) is the source of finitude, as Pirsig seems to be >saying, isn't it more plausible that this source is "uncreated" and >absolute? Dan: I don't recall Robert Pirsig saying Quality is the source of finitude. Perhaps it might be said that static quality is finitude. Dynamic Quality is the source as long as it is remembered to keep it concept-free. >Ham: >Isn't it more logical that the multiplistic "patterns of quality" >that we are >attuned to in existence ultimately relate to the Oneness of our Creator? Dan: I think the MOQ would say the individual invents the ficticous self so in a sense we are our own creators. >Ham: >I find it remarkable that the concept of a transcendent source is >inimicable >to postmodern philosophy. By rejecting a primary source beyond finitude, >we >prevent the kind of workable ontology that could make the MoQ a meaningful >breakthrough in contemporary Western Philosophy. Dan: Dynamic Quality is beyond definition thus beyond finitude, if you will. I think the MOQ would say it is important to stay away from concepts in the sense that you seem to be suggesting, however. >Ham: >I wonder if its author has ever considered the humanistic value of leaving >such a "legacy", instead of an unresolved enigma. Dan: I cannot speak for Mr. Pirsig but writing 2 novels seems a fine legacy, imo. Thank you for reading, Dan 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/
