[MD] differences between MoQ and SOM

[MarshaV]

At 01:15 AM 10/23/2008, you wrote:
>Greetings, Zenith [Platt quoted] --
>
>
>[LILA, Chpt. 12]:
>- "The 'Laws of Nature' are moral laws."  (Free Will?)
>
>[Zenith]:
>>I would not consider this to be about free will.
>>The Laws of Nature, such that govern the movement of atoms,
>>are moral laws in the sense that they involve value-sensibility
>>that, as Ham points out, Pirsig allows even to objective
>>phenomena like atoms. I think Pirsig is reiterating the idea that
>>Quality can be sensed even by inorganic objects. The laws of
>>entropy, of gravity, of thermodynamics are best described by
>>saying that heat "likes" to dissipate or that objects "like" to
>>exert forces on one another.
>
>In the paragraph that precedes these statements, Pirsig writes: "The 
>Metaphysics of Quality says that if
>moral judgments are essentially assertions of value and if value is 
>the fundamental ground-stuff of the world, then moral judgments are 
>the fundamental ground-stuff of the world."
>
>This is another example of a syllogism with an undistributed 
>middle.  But, irrespective of the false logic, "moral judgments" are 
>made by conscious individuals, not by the world.  It is man's 
>intellect that impugns morality to the universe and "asserts" that 
>this is value.  Electrons and moons are not held to their orbits by 
>"preference" or "value" but by electro-mechanical or gravitational 
>attraction.  Heat doesn't dissipate because "it likes to."  This 
>kind of thinking is neither philosophical nor scientific; it's 
>childish animism based on a naive interpretation of physical behavior.
>
>Platt quotes the author of Lila's Child as saying: "I think the 
>answer is that inorganic objects experience events but do not react 
>to them biologically socially or intellectually.  They react to 
>these experiences inorganically, according to the laws of 
>physics."  This conclusion doesn't rectify Pirsig's fallacy.  Again, 
>it is pure animism.  Unrealized value is a logical absurdity.  There 
>is no experience without sensible awareness.  And awareness isn't 
>biological, social or intellectual - it's psychic, subjective, and 
>without an existential referent.  We're talking about experiential 
>(SOM) reality here, not metaphysics, and we cannot describe our 
>"real world" of relational existence in any other terms than 
>subject/object experience.
>
>The "essence" of reality is something else, possibly another issue 
>for discussion.  But MoQers make the mistake of confusing the two by 
>defining physical reality as Value, Quality, Morality, or Intellect, 
>all of which are subjective constructs.  That's man's role, not Nature's.
>
>Thanks for trying to reconcile my cosmology with Platt's response, 
>Zenith. However, I fear that never the twain shall meet.
>
>Essentially yours,
>Ham


Ham,

You wrote, "That's man's role, not Nature's."

I think it's a pattern called 'man's nature'.

Marsha










>---------------------
>>>- "Chemistry professors smoke pipes and go to movies because irresistible
>>>cause-and-effect forces of the cosmos force them to do so." (Determinism?)
>>
>>----------------------
>>I imagine its a standard definition of determinism
>>----------------------
>>
>>>- "We can just as easily deduce the morality of atoms from the observation
>>>that chemistry professors are, in general, moral."  (Then comes the
>>>syllogism to "prove" it.)
>>>
>>>With all due respect to the author, this is nonsense.  First of all, Pirsig
>>>himself as much as tells us that experience creates our reality, which
>>>suggests that any Free Will or Determinism perceived in existence is an
>>>attribution by the cognizant subject.  What must occur before the experience
>>>of process and causes is individuated awareness and its sense of Value.
>>>Pirsig calls this sensibility "pre-intellectual experience", but he does not
>>>posit it as proprietary to the subject.  In fact, he gives as much
>>>value-sensibility to atoms and other objective phenomena as he gives to the
>>>individual who observes them.  If man is not a free agent, where is the Free
>>>Will?   Whose will is it that creates the universe?  Obviously, Pirsig wants
>>>to be on the side of the objectivists who claim that everything is the
>>>result of cause-and-effect determinism.
>>>
>>>[Platt]:
>>>>The premise is accepted by many physicists who believe all is
>>>>simply different forms of energy. That's at the root of Pirsig's
>>>>criticism of SOM. How does "everything is different forms of
>>>>energy" explain quality?  In fact, how does it explain "different
>>>>forms?"  (That's when "oops" comes in.)  As for configuring
>>>>atoms of a person, I'm sure you're familiar with, "Beam me up,
>>>>Scotty."  Fiction now, but who knows?
>>>
>>>[Ham] Apart from the "oops" factor and the fact that the MoQ is a 
>>>metaphorical
>>>representation of physical existence, do you really believe that a human
>>>being is no more than a particular arrangement of atoms or energy patterns?
>>
>>--------------
>>Someone once said that the most amazing thing about the universe is 
>>that it is at all intelligible. The "oops" factor, emergent 
>>properties, patterns, Quality... could they be the same?
>>
>>As for a person being "nothing more" than an arrangement of atoms 
>>or energy patterns, well, why not? Isn't a sculpture of an elephant 
>>"nothing more" than an arrangement of stone or welded metal or 
>>whatever? But no, its also art! A person is also character, spirit, soul!
>>
>>The key word is "arrangement." Therein lies the magic. As Craig 
>>pointed out, "the MoQ LEVELS address this issue." On the inorganic 
>>level, all we are is stardust. Only on a higher level do things 
>>like personality and social status come into play. Sorry, that's what I think!
>>
>>>Do your worst,
>>>Zenith
>>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a 
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.