To: Marco, Jonathan, Bodvar and Platt
>From Rog
I would like to try to wrap this discussion up soon, but we still have a few
loose ends.
1st, to Marco:
I enjoyed the article much, though -- like you -- felt a touch of the MOQ
could have helped the author through the tougher parts. I strongly,
emphatically recommend you look into autopoiesis. Dan has some links in his
site, or better yet, just go onto Amazon.com and order Fritjof Capra's "Web
of Life" asap. It fleshes out ideas similar to Vanechoutte, though in much
more detail and more in line with the MOQ (though by no means fully aligned
-- it is still science). I support the progression of experience to
awareness to consciousness.
Also, I agree that autonomous is the word that made me cringe. I fully
support that neither man nor atom is autonomous (again THE key theme to "The
Web of Life.") And finally, I even concur with Vaneechoute's aside on the
extremes of anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism. Again, the BEST usage is
that which is appropriate to the description, being careful to avoid bias on
either side.
I would say Marco and I have reached a consensus on the issue.
2nd to Bo:
Wecome back partner! I also agree with what you wrote:
"No, there is no awareness in the somish meaning, not on the
inorganic nor on any other level, but there is VALUATION and the
value of (the difference between) what's subjective and what's
objective is the highest static level of the MOQ (Intellect) and one
that only human beings have attained."
I agree with Bodvar.
3rd to Platt:
You keep branching off into new arguments, most of which are arguments with
what you assume my position to be, not with what I am saying. In over half
the cases, you actually give my rebuttal later in your argument to what you
assume are my positions. Let me just get to the point and say that I agree
that aware little subjective/objective atoms could indeed fit in with
Pirsig's take on evolution. My argument has been that patterns of value is
the more appropriate term, and that your choices and preferences and desires
and chance events and all are all just patterns of value too. You choose to
anthropomorphize the issue into autonomous entities. Whichever description
is used makes no difference to the MOQ's version of evolution. I just happen
to find your version inappropriate to the broader concepts of the
metaphysics, as pointed out above in Bo's quote. Whether our disagreement is
linguistic or conceptual, I can't really say, but me thinks it is the latter.
You wrote "Can we not attribute any properties to patterns of quality?" To
which I answer that your "properties" are of course QUALITY(ies), and what
you are really asking is why we can't assign qualities to quality. In doing
so the effect is to assign qualities/values to subjects and objects. "You
can't do it." To quote the Big Kahuna. "You get all mixed up because values
don't belong to either group." I have written a gazillion times that the
objects and/or subjects are derived from experience. They are patterns of
quality, they are not discrete, autonomous entities (any more than we are).
At which you try to lead me back to the solipsism thing again. (this is the
fallback argument whenever anyone gets frustrated with mystic-influenced
interpretations of the MOQ.) Actually, Bo's answer above adresses this
argument 100% too, so I refer you back to it. But let me continue:
You wrote:
"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 ... have experience."
I never said no beings can have experience. I said beings are derived/created
from experience. This applies to atoms as well as people. To oversimplify
greatly, my argument is the mystic one, not the solipsistic/idealist one
(which presumes cartesian duality from the outset)
Platt:
"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."
And I take him even more literally, namely that everything is created by
value. It is value patterns that are choosing, but choice is itself a value
pattern. Nowhere do you need to assign little cartesian editors -- neither in
man nor in photons.
Finally, to Jonathan:
You wrote:
"As I understand it, in Roger and elephant's "patterns of value", VALUE
is strictly an adjective and never a verb.
Patterns are objects that HAVE value, but do not themselves value.
Platt and I disagree with this. VALUE is a verb. Atoms *value* other
atoms (hence chemical bonding) and boy honey-bees *value* girl honey
bees. Roger accuses us of turning patterns into little Cartesian
subjects. Equally, we can accuse Roger and Elephant of turning patterns
into little Cartesian objects. Supposedly, as Pirsigians we should be
able to avoid such arguments, but our cultural baggage makes this
difficult."
Linguistically (socially as per Bo), we can divide POV's into nouns (both s &
o), verbs and adjectives. I have tried extremely hard to avoid subjectifying
or objectifying subatomic patterns. Certainly, using our baggage-laden
language, I was sure to slip up somewhere over the past 3 weeks, but let me
clarify now that if I gave you this impression it was unintentional. Although
I agree that value can be what we categorize as a verb, it is not just a verb
(if so the last paragraph of the book needs 'explainin'.) And for the record
I reject the whole "awareness has the atom" supposition too.
Platt and Jonathan, my position obviously makes absolutely no sense to you,
as you rarely ever respond to what I am saying. I have noticed that what I
will crudely call the mystic-influenced position makes absolutely no sense to
some folks. Perhaps they see something (wrong) in it that I miss, or perhaps
they miss something (right) in it that I see, but regardless, I have yet to
ever argue or observe anyone else argue someone into understanding the
position (though some do come to it on their own over time -- for example, I
started in this forum as a strong non-mystic.) Sorry to be pessimistic, but I
suspect further discusion will lead us only to more frustration. Sometimes
progress comes laterally rather than head on...?????
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
