To:Jeremy
From: Rog
JEREMY:
I appologise in advance if I have'nt got the gist of the awareness
discussion, (I can see someone yawning at the back) but, can someone explain
why prefer is preferable to awareness given that something (as far as I am
aware) has to precede prefer but not awareness.
awareness-experience-interpretation = preference/choice/value
ROG:
I don't think you will get an argument that direct experience is quality or
value or what have you. The discussion has been specifically on whether
atoms are aware. Some members of the forum convinced themselves that this
must be correct a while back, and now two of us are taking on that
assumption. Following similarly to your chain of thought, my view is that
atoms are not discrete entities, they are abstractions derived from direct
experience.
To catch you up, the PRO argument for aware atoms has been basing their
argument (in my VERY biased opinion) on a) causality, b) logical necessity
and/or c) progressionism(?). Let me clarify each:
a) The PRO's (Marco, Platt and Jonathan) say that to deny awareness to
photons implies strict determinism/causation. The CON side (Elephant and me)
disagrees and retorts that it is most appropriate to say that photons are
patterns of value, and that these POV's are not deterministic (i. e. B values
A). In other words, the Con side denies strict causality as well, just in
different words.
b) The PRO's say that atoms must be aware or the whole MOQ falls apart. The
CON's think they need to make a case as well as explain why Pirsig never
seemed to share this logical dependency. To my knowledge no case was ever
made.
c) The PRO's argue for a progression of awareness from 'sensitivity' to super
self consciousness. This CON states that if that is what they mean, then
that is what they should say. A hundred penny's may make a dollar, but that
doesn't make a penny a dollar. The PRO's have offered to change the
discussion to "atoms are sensitive" or "atoms are prehensive." This CON is
hunky-dory with the concept of progression, though both of us are
apprehensive that their choices of words imply discrete subjective particles
and therefore can be misinterpreted both within the MOQ and within Quantum
science.
In summary, the CON's think that Pirsig's handling of the issues of substance
and causality in Ch 8 works fine without having to argue atomic 'awareness',
which implies that subatomic particles are subjective, discrete, living,
conscious entities -- in other words, more of the same old subject/object
confusion.
So, what do YOU think?
Are atoms aware?
and,
Does the MOQ require the answer to be yes to hang together as a viable
explanation of reality?
Rog
PS -- The Pro side (and Elephant) should feel free to counter or add to my
biased synopsis
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
