[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hey Bo, John, All 

If consciousness is self-explanatory, and self is an illusion (according to 
Pirsig and others), where does that leave us?

Bo hints that the original MOQ as described in ZAMM dissolves the 
mind/matter enigma. But how? By making it a static level within the 
umbrella of the MOQ? OK. Does that make the DQ of the MOQ 
consciousness itself? 

In Lila Pirsig says Quality is experience and experience is value. Is 
consciousness the same as experience? Frankly, I don't see a 
difference. So that would make Quality=Consciousness. 

Is this what you are saying, Bo? Is this where your train of thoughts is 
leading, John?

Or is the problem of consciousness something we don't want to deal 
with? After all, nobody else has come up with a satisfactory explanation 
of consciousness. The idea that it somehow emerges from a lump of 
electric meat means it's a miracle. Shall we settle for that?

Regards,
Platt.



On 11 Aug 2009 at 9:05, John Carl wrote:

> >
> >
> > "Consciousness" is another SOM-generated platypus, the biggest of
> > them all. Pirsig did not include it in his list of such that the MOQ is
> > supposed to resolve, why he omitted it is, as always, his faulty
> > method of subsuming SOM (inorganic and biology= objects-objective,
> > social and intellect = subjects/subjective) this cumbersome exercise
> > will no more explain consciousness than it explains its source: the
> > mind/matter enigma.
> >
> 
> 
> Nothing can explain consciousness but consciousness;  consciousness is
> self-explanatory.
> 
> 
> > . This is what the MOQ dis-solves by its
> > change of metaphysical premises and making SOM into its own
> > intellectual level. We could have taught this true (SOL) MOQ that
> > ZAMM hinted to hadn't it been for LILA's pulling the rug from under
> > this achievement and the "academics" presenting this impotent quasi-
> > moq as the real thing.
> >
> 
> 
> Here is something you've been explaining for a long time, and yet somehow
> I've had great difficulty in following you.  But as I've gone along and
> investigated the MoQ on my own, I've found myself at times starting to come
> to some conclusions which have made me think, "This sounds like what Bodvar
> has been asserting."
> So we shall see where my rollercoaster train of thought leads and if I
> end up on the same track.
> 
> John
> 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/