[MD] The percolating SOL

[Ham Priday]

Marsha (and DMB) --

[Quoting from A. McWatt's Introduction to "Pirsig's Metaphysics of 
Quality"]:

> "I think it's better to say that time is a static intellectual concept
> that is one of the very first to emerge from Dynamic Quality.
> That keeps Dynamic Quality concept-free..."
>
> "The MOQ starts with the source of undifferentiated perception
> itself as the ultimate reality. The very first differentiation is probably
> `change`. The second one may be `before and after`. From this
> sense of `before and after` emerge more complex concepts of time."[32]

These Pirsig responses (footnoted as contained in a letter from RMP to Ant) 
are
consistent with Kant's theory of "a priori knowledge" (e.g., time) and 
support my own hypothesis that the perception of  'change' (evolution in 
time), along with identity, is primary to differentiated experience.  (I see 
that DMB has elaborated on the Kantian connection in his follow-up post.)

I take issue, however, with the suggestion that "the source of 
undifferentiated perception" is "the ultimate reality".  It is Quality, of 
course, that he's alluding to as the "undifferentiated perception", which is 
an innocuous way of positing Quality as the primary source.  (In fairness to 
Pirsig, he didn't assert this as metaphysical proposition, but only that 
"the MOQ starts with" this premise.  Nonetheless, the suggestion that 
perception's referent is the ultimate source is firmly planted in this 
response.)

Although you didn't include it, the second paragraph of this Introduction 
contains another problematic statement attributed to someone named Hagen, 
but claimed by Ant to represent the MOQ's consistency with a fundamental 
Buddhistic principle:

"...the MOQ shares the fundamental teaching of Buddhism in that an incorrect 
view of reality is to see a distinct and persistent mind and body supporting 
consciousness where a subject is discerned, along with its objects.  And 
that a correct view of reality is...
'to see no persistent mind or body - no subject - since there are no 
distinct and persistent mind objects available to perception.'"[4]

I'd be interested to hear David's interpretation of the last sentence.  Why 
are "there no distinct and persistent mind objects available to perception"? 
What do we perceive, then, and what is the mind that perceives it?   Or is 
Anthony simply suggesting that anything short of dismissing the idea that a 
subject perceives objects is "metaphysically" incorrect?

And thanks, Marsha.  It's enlightening to read Pirsig's comments on another 
author's
analysis of his work.

Best regards,
Ham


> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 6:24 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The percolating SOL
>
> David --
>
>> Ham said:
>> There remains, however, the question: What IS the cause of Value?
>>
>> dmb says:
>> When someone answers that, I'll ask about the cause of
>> the cause of value. Then somebody can ask about the
>> cause of the cause of the cause of value. And so on, forever.
>> Just as in the case of theology's "prime mover" or "first cause",
>> it's a goofy, goofy fake problem.
>
> It is a "goofy fake problem" only for those who cannot see their way out 
> of
> the fallacy of infinite regression.   Since they have no answer to "What
> caused the Big Bang?" or "What created Consciousness?", they refuse to
> regard the concept of a primary cause as valid.  And so it remains a
> metaphysical problem.
>
> Empirical reality is understood as a cause-and-effect system, the 
> "effects"
> seen as a series of events occurring in time.  This presumes that 
> dimensions
> like time and space are fundamental to reality, rather than the relational
> mode of finite experience.  Yet experience has to be the impediment in our
> understanding, as logic does not support the view that the first instance 
> of
> anything is "uncaused".  It is man's intellectual bias, not logic, which
> rejects the idea of a "first cause" because it's associated with theology.
>
> When we free ourselves from religious bias and adversity to metaphysics, 
> it
> becomes clear that everything in existence is a "creation", and that
> phenomena which have no causal explanation can only be accounted for by an
> "uncreated source" that is not limited by existential conditions such as
> time, space, and evolution.  Regrettably, despite all their talk about the
> short-sightedness of SOM thinking, MoQ's author and his followers are
> unwilling to seek understanding beyond finitude.
>
> Essentially speaking,
> Ham