[MD] subject / object logic

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo had said]
> Just another rhetoric distortive tactic. "Flower children"? I'm talking
> about what Pirsig calls "the tat tvam asi truth of the Upanishads", the 
> dissolution of the "self" and the "object" in the moment of pure Quality.
> 
> [Platt]
> Distortion? Hardly. "Blowing of the mind" and "dissolution of self and
> object" go hand in hand. Destroying "one's ability to reason" likewise. Just
> as I thought. You really can't back up your accusation of "moronic
> distortions." 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Here's the quote, with the next sentence added.
> 
> "Phædrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality perception, or not even
> perception, at the moment of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is
> no object. There is only a sense of Quality that produces a later awareness
> of subjects and objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject and object
> are identical. This is the tat tvam asi truth of the Upanishads, but it’s
> also reflected in modern street argot. "Getting with it," "digging it,"
> "grooving on it" are all slang reflections of this identity. It is this
> identity that is the basis of craftsmanship in all the technical arts. "
> (ZMM)
> 
> I highly doubt Pirsig was referring to "blowing the mind" when he wrote
> this. 

"Getting with it," "digging it" and "grooving on it" were also slang 
reflections of the flower children. In a drug-induced state, which many of 
the them practiced, the distinction between subject and object is often 
blurred if not eliminated altogether. But, I agree that in the above quote 
drugs probably play no part. He is talking about total absorption in the 
job at hand, a state not unfamiliar to painters and other artists. It was 
his choice of  vocabulary that threw me off.  I stand corrected.   

> [Platt]
> If nothing else, the concept of selfishness is meaningless unless the
> concept of self as a reality is accepted. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> And since selfishness is your number one priority, no wonder you are
> screaming so loudly against the Buddhist foundations of the MOQ.

I thought you were against selfishness. But if there is no self, how can 
that be?

> [Arlo had said]
> The things we experience are "real" only insofar as our value-interaction
> with them. The "self" is like this too. I had provided quotes by Einstein
> and Pirsig capturing this sentiment.
> 
> [Platt]
> Sounds like pure Idealism to me -- reality only from our experience of it. I
> thought that went out with Bishop Berkeley. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Sounds like Pirsig to me. Maybe it would to you too if you took the time to
> read and understand ZMM.

Arrogance at its height. 

> [Platt]
> That my daughter existed can be verified. You could not verify her as a
> beautiful person because you never met her. But, as soon as you admit that,
> you admit the existence of a private "self."
> 
> [Arlo]
> Not at all. I admit that the collection of patterns you referred to as "your
> daughter" had real, valuable pragmatic experience with you. 
> 
> Pirsig touches on this when he writes about Chris' death. "What had to be
> seen was that the Chris I missed so badly was not an object but a pattern,
> and that although the pattern included the flesh and blood of Chris, that
> was not all there was to it. The pattern was larger than Chris and myself,
> and related us in ways that neither of us understood completely and neither
> of us was in complete control of." (Pirsig)

Absolutely. You  should write "the pattern included the flesh and blood of 
Chris" a hundred times on the blackboard. That was a integral part of 
Chris's self -- no illusion whatsoever. Nor was the larger pattern an 
illusion. Pirsig identified, recognized it, felt it in his heart and soul. 
To him it was real. 

> [Platt]
> My catching my first-fly ball has long since disappeared from my memory.
> Memories of unique "self" experiences like that are ephemeral and could be
> considered illusory, if you admit the existence of a self which you don't. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> So memories that can't be tangibly verified are "illusions", but ones that
> can are "real"? 

No. Memories unique to self may be illusory to others. To the self they are 
real. 

> What about a memory I have that I think could be verified,
> but I've never tried, is that real or illusion? What if when I tried to
> verify it, I can't? Does that make it turn from something real to something
> illusory?
 
If the memory is exclusively yours, it is real to you. To others that you 
describe it to, it's probably an illusion unless they were there at the 
time to verify it. But since you don't believe you exist, the whole 
question is mute. 

> And what if later I do verify that memory after all? Does it turn real
> again?
> 
> Better to say the dinner I consumed last night was a a set of biological
> patterns, and my "memory" of it (whether verifiable or not) is an
> "intellectual pattern". Thoughts, memories, dreams, all these are
> intellectual patterns, as is the "self". It too is an intellectual pattern.

Are you really suggesting that all intellectual patterns are illusions? 

> [Arlo had said]
> Are you saying the "self" is the biological body? Is "Arlo" the body I see
> when I look in the mirror?
> 
> [Platt]
> Partly and necessarily, yes. And Arlo is the "self" that will eventually end
> up in a box or jar. Then hopefully there will be some with pleasant memories
> or Arlo that won't be illusory. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> The set of memories and categorized experiences known to itself as "Arlo"
> will indeed disappear when the hardware it runs on expires. But since our
> "selves" are forever intertwined in the dialogic intertwining of social
> activity, part of me (of us all) continue to be very "real" long after our
> biological bodies have turned to dust. 

How can part of you continue to by real when you believe you (self) to be 
an illusion?

> [Arlo had said]
> Real only by virtue of their pragmatic value, not because of some
> existential being apart from this value. That existential being that we
> think is apart is the illusion.
> 
> [Platt]
> That's precisely where we disagree. See Boswell above.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I'm surprised someone in the MOQ forum would suggest that "subjects" and
> "objects" have real existential being apart from their value.

That's precisely what attracts me to the MOQ. It is not bigoted in the 
sense that it demands interpreting experience one way and one way only. I 
can interpret the data I call my cat a tabby, or I can interpret the same 
data as a good cat. Both interpretations "have existential being." or in 
plain English "are real."  

> "Value, the leading edge of reality, is no longer an irrelevant offshoot of
> structure. Value is the predecessor of structure. It’s the preintellectual
> awareness that gives rise to it. Our structured reality is preselected on
> the basis of value, and really to understand structured reality requires an
> understanding of the value source from which it’s derived." (Pirsig)
> 
> "Quality, value, creates the subjects and objects of the world. The facts do
> not exist until value has created them. " (Pirsig)
> 
> And "value" just does not go around creating subject and object willy-nilly.
> No, Quality brings subjects and objects into existence only when there is a
> pragmatic value to do so. The "self" is one of these "things". It has no
> "existence" apart from its pragamatic value as a focal point, a
> meta-thought, by which experience is measured, categorized and structured.

Pragmatic value to who? The "self."   

> [Platt]
> Keep listening. Maybe you'll learn something. Personally I go for Laura
> Ingraham whose latest book is No. 1 on the NY Times list. Maybe you should
> ask yourself why. Maybe even read the book. Open your closed mind a bit.  
> 
> [Arlo]
> What arrogance. Maybe you should open your closed mind a bit too, Platt.
> 
> [Platt]
> Fact: Liberal Columbia University invites the president of a country that
> has assisted in killing American soldiers to speak. The same libs kicked the
> ROTC off campus in 1969. Appalling? You bet. You want to defend that?  
> 
> [Arlo]
> You are right. The ROTC should be left back on Columbia's campus.

What about giving a platform to the president of Iran?

> [Platt]
> No, that is not the rationale. I specifically referred to the loss of
> freedom under Hillary Care. No sane person buys your distortion spewed
> below.  
> 
> [Arlo]
> You mean, despite everything else I believe and fight for, I "hate freedom"
> simply because I support universal health care?
> 
> I'd argue that freedom is improved under a system of universal health care.
> Those who fall into extreme debt to pay for outrageous bills when they dont
> have coverage, or who die because they can't get treatment they need, or who
> are trapped in jobs simply because if they try to find other work they will
> lose, forever, healthcare due to a preexisting condition... and not to
> mention that philosophically I find the notion of social Darwinism
> appalling. The idea that letting the poor die off, as if proposing that not
> only do they NOT have any Dynamic contributions to society, but they also
> are a hinderance, or drain, on Quality, is preposterous.

My how you exaggerate. By law, health care in this country is available to 
everyone. The poor dying off for because of policy of social Darwinism is a 
nothing but a fear-mongering illusion, similar to that other liberal 
shibboleth, human-caused global warming.

 [Platt]
> Your premise  that I consider all government programs to be anti-freedom is
> pure bunk. Talk about distortion!  
> 
> [Arlo]
> Of course you don't. That was my point. You consider YOUR government
> programs to be great, but anyone who supports any OTHER program is villifed
> by ridiculous talk-radio rhetoric as being "anti-freedom". You parrot such
> ridiculous and embarrassing crap here, and its shameless.

There you go again. You really are hung up on talk radio aren't you? How do 
you explain its popularity? How do you explain that attempts by libs to be 
competitive are complete failures? Would you like to ban conservative talk 
radio? That would indeed be shameless. Anyway, all you do is parrot the 
ridiculous and embarrassing crap coming out of moveon-org and other radical 
left-wing blogs.  

What government programs do I consider "great" except the Constitution and 
the police/military? Some, like roads and courts (to enforce contracts) are 

needed for a functioning free market. Many others, while well intended, 
chip away at personal freedom by their necessarily coercive nature. Anyway, 
as I have documented a number of times here, universal health care as 
practiced elsewhere has many life-threatening flaws. Thanks Hillary, but no 
thanks.