To: Rog
From: Platt
Thanks for further explanation of your position vis a vis experiencing
(aware) atoms. I must have the thickest head on the planet because I
still don’t get your objections.
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.
Where does he say this? Can you point out some of Pirsig’s non-
serious moments vs. his serious moments? How can you tell the
difference? Where has Pirsig written that stable inorganic patterns of
value are incapable of experience?
ROG:
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.
I don’t understand how above you can refer to atoms as subjective
entities and here you call them objective entities. I call them neither
subjects nor objects but patterns of value with the capacity to decide,
choose, “prefer” etc. a response to Dynamic Quality. What’s wrong with
that? Are you not a pattern of value with “subjective” characteristics of
choice, experience, response to DQ etc?
ROG:
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.
Are you saying that patterns of Quality cannot be substantive, discrete,
knowing? If so, then I’ve misread Lila in its entirety. Can we not
attribute any properties to patterns of Quality?
ROG:
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.
Trouble is, evolution as the MOQ describes it doesn’t hold together
unless the patterns of value at the inorganic level wanted to “evade,
override and circumvent” the laws of nature. (Lila, Chap.11)
PLATT: (previously)
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."
Whose experience? Are you restricting experience as used in the MOQ
to human beings alone? If so, that by itself explains your position. But
surely you can see that’s absurd on it’s face. Well, maybe not. No one
can prove another’s experience. Is that your position? Your experience
is the only experience? From one perspective, that’s true. I’ve written
before, “Mine is the only world.” Others jumped on that immediately as
solipsism. Hmmm. Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement.
PLATT: (previously)
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?
No because your version does not allow atoms or molecules to have
any choice in the matter.
ROG:
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."
This does seem to be the crux— in your interpretation of the MOQ that
no beings other than human can have experience whereas in my
interpretation all beings (except conglomerates such as cars and
rocks—what Ken Wilber calls “heaps”) have experience. Pirsig’s
sentence, “The idea that values create objects gets less and less
weird as you get used to it” applies all the way back to the beginning
where living objects were created by the value, the “betterness” if you
will, of overcoming gravity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
You see, Rog, when Pirsig writes, “So what Phaedrus was saying was
that not just life, but everything is an ethical activity” I take him literally to
mean that everything including inorganic patterns of value are capable
of ethical activity, meaning they have choices, even though limited.
ROG:
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.
Yes, but you don’t seem to accept HOW that progression took place.
You don’t seem to agree with Pirsig’s explanation of evolution of
dynamic values as being a matter, in the beginning, of atomic
preferences.
ROG:
4) I already answered this. Remember the discussion on bears and
bacteria and whatever?
I’m having trouble finding that discussion but did find this from a post
of yours dated Feb. 17:
“As Pirsig’s theory is pan-experiential, the experience referred to by
‘immediate experience’ applies to any entity (be it a sub-atomic
particle, plant, worm, human being etc.) that is derived from immediate
experience.”
Now I’m really confused! Doesn’t “pan-experiential” mean what I’ve
been saying about experiencing patterns being found at all levels?
PLATT: (previously)
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.
Granted. But you’ve yet to explain how evolution happened if not by
chance or causation since you reject the idea that atoms are capable
of “preferring” what DQ offered.
ROG:
Later dude. It is probably time we kissed and made up now. I did learn
lots though, so thanks for the adventure.
I’m sorry for being such a thick-headed dolt. Believe me, Rog, I’m
learning as much from our discussion as any I’ve taken part in. So I
hope you’ll be patient with me and answer my questions when you
can. I think I see where you’re coming from, but I’m still not sure. But, if
you decide you’ve had enough of my stupidity, I’ll certainly understand.
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
