To:Platt
From:Roger
PLATT:
Pirsig writes:
“The reason atoms become chemistry professors has got to be that
something in nature does not like laws of chemical equilibrium or the
law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics or any other law that
restricts the molecule’s freedom They only go along with laws of any
kind because they have to, preferring an existence that does not follow
any laws whatsoever.”
ATOMS PREFER AN EXISTENCE . . . meaning 1) they know some
things are better than others, 2) they possess the ability to value, and
3) they experience (are aware).
ROG:
Alternatively, rather than anthropomorphizing atoms, molecules and nature
into conscious, discrete, little subjective decision making entities, you can
consider them stable inorganic patterns of value. They don't prefer, they are
patterns of preference. Pirsig says this frequently in his more serious
moments. Granted he uses literary license to anthropomorphize everything
throughout the book (from atoms to forces to levels), but I can't believe he
ever worried that anyone would go against the grain of the MOQ to make them
into substantive, objective, animistic, contemplative entities.
Platt, don't you see how you are taking the MOQ's patterns of Quality and
twisting them into Cartesian/knowing/substantive/Newtonian/discrete little
subjects? Elephant has been trying to point this out for two weeks, but I
don't think you want to read what he is offering.
But to answer your question, drop the SOM language and replace them with
atoms/molecules/nature are patterns of value. All the rest holds together
without all the cute little 'aware' atomic dudes and dudettes.
PLATT:
The entire MOQ rests of the assumption that reality is Quality and
Quality is experience. Thus, reality as described in the MOQ is of
necessity experiential from protons to people.
ROG:
Great start, but then it leads right to an SOM U-turn. If I could
editorialize I would write/right it as "The entire MOQ rests of the
assumption that reality is Quality and Quality is experience. Thus, reality
as described in the MOQ is of necessity experiential. And the patterns that
are derived/created from that experience range from protons to people."
PLATT:
It seems to me that to reject or refute the “atoms are aware” thesis the
CONS must answer 1) why evolution occurred, 2) how a reality
dependent on experience as posited in the MOQ can evolve from non-
experiencing beings, 3) how awareness (the ability to experience)
emerged from no awareness and 4) at what evolutionary stage did
experiencing beings appear.
This challenge has yet to be met by anyone on the CON side.
ROG:
I hate to be a stickler for details, but the reason the challenge had "yet to
be met" was because I didn't know it had been offerred. Sorry for the
oversight. Let me address it point by point:
1) Strike out the word substance/molecule/nature wherever it appears and
substitute the expression "stable inorganic pattern of value." It doesn't
make a whit of difference to the theory of evolution. Can you grant me both
versions (yours and mine) work fine to explain evolution according to RMP's
theory?
2) There it is again. I need to know how we can have a reality dependent
upon experience and then switch the dependency to "beings". Do you
understand the point that El and I have been making? (again, it is fine for
you to disagree, but does it make sense?) We reject the
materialist/discrete/SOM building blocks interpretation of reality. I believe
the MOQ posits that beings are derived/created from experience, not that
beings have experience. To quote a you-know-who, "The idea that values create
objects gets less and less weird as you get used to it."
3) I have agreed with you guys at least three times that I accept the
progression of increasingly dynamic values. DO I NEED TO TYPE LOUDER? ;^)
What I reject is your primacy on the subjective/objective.
4) I already answered this. Remember the discussion on bears and bacteria
and whatever?
PLATT:
If their
answer is the scientific one, “it all just happened by chance,” we will
know they disagree with the MOQ. That’s fine, but let’s put it out there
on the table.
ROG:
If I had a dollar for every time Elephant and I have insisted that we are not
arguing on the issue of causation or chance, I would be able to buy that darn
table.
Later dude. It is probably time we kissed and made up now. I did learn lots
though, so thanks for the adventure.
Rog
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
