[MD] Does the MOQ invalidate Subjectivity?

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Matt,


Matt said:

The bit they'll see is "the actual experience of experiencing" and how 
that's "different (and prior to) 'patterns of value'".  The "actual 
experience of experiencing" is another placeholder for, what in an earlier 
conversation we were calling "qualia", which is another placeholder for 
Northrop's "concept of intution", which is another placeholder for 
"pre-intellectual experience".

What the above section does, then, is lay down the gauntlet again for why 
those above notions should all be shed: they are what Ham is talking about.  
Because Ham takes such notions as being a primary subject/object distinction 
and, so construed, I can't see that he's all that wrong.



Steve:

I don't think I understand, but I'd like to.

For you, Pirsig's pre-intellectual awareness equates to an experience of experiencing, which may be a primary subject/object distinction?

Can you try to explain?

I wonder if part of this issue is that there seem to be at least two perspectives when Pirsig talks about the MOQ. On the one hand he is describing the experience of a human being and on the other he is describing evolution of patterns of value.  In the first case Value is directly experienced but in recognizing patterns of value, we are orthogonal to the value that we infer (such experience of valuations going on around us is also directly experienced Value.)

So the evolutionary perspective may include a subject/object distinction since it implies an observer of these value patterns? Or is it the direct experience of value perspective that troubles you?

I wish Paul were around. He's very good at sorting out this sort of thing.

Regards,
Steve

 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Football ’06 - Go with the leader. Start your league today!