[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[MarshaV]

Platt,

The other day I was listening to Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 5.  I 
thought it beautiful.  Then I thought of beauty.  And then I thought of you.


Marsha




At 09:24 AM 2/15/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Ham,
>
>[Ham]
> > Platt --
> > I know you would rather discuss international politics, but I can't let
> > this
> > go unchallenged.
>
>I enjoy all our discussions, Ham, regardless of the subject.
>
>[Platt]
> > > Until the subject (a pattern of values) symbolizes (with an
> > intellectual
> > > pattern of values) his realization (Dynamic Quality), the subject
> > remains
> > > mute. Thus, I can only speculate on what the subject "realizes." ...
>
>[Ham]
> > You can only speculate on what your cat or another human being realizes.
> > But there can be no doubt as to what you as your own subject realizes.
> > Are
> > we at least in agreement on this?  If not, how do you define
> > "realization"?
>
>"Realization" equals awareness equals experience. Yes, we agree that I'm
>aware of being aware -- if I stop to think (SOL) about it. I doubt if UTOE
>is similarly aware of being aware, however.
>
>[Platt]
> > > [Pirsig] believes in what you call subjects, but he calls them patterns
> > of
> > > value
> > > consisting of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns
> > of
> > > value. Remember: for Pirsig, the world is a moral order. Like he
> > suggests,
> > > when you see subjects and objects as interacting patterns of value, you
> > > get
> > > a whole different view of reality than seen through subject/object
> > > spectacles.
>
>[Ham]
> > Assuming your analysis of the MoQ's "subject" is correct, you have
> > "patterns
> > of value" chasing after value.
>
>Not chasing, interacting.
>
> > Whether the value being sought is "static"
> > or "dynamic", something is wrong with this circular epistemology.  Simply
> > speaking, a value (or pattern of values) has no need for value, hence no
> > need (e.g,, desire or motivation) to interact with what it already is.
>
>"Need" is a value. The "interaction" is a value. Value "is."
>
> > This
> > throws Michael's concept of the subject "seeking transcendence" flat on
> > its
> > face.
>
>How so? There are high values and low values. To some transcendence is a
>high value.
>
> > You haven't allowed for sensibility in this analysis.  I define the
> > subject
> > as value-sensibility, the basis of proprietary awareness and the driving
> > force of human action.  I can't see that either of these attributes is
> > accounted for in Pirsig's epistemology.
>
>Sensibility is sense-of-value. UTOE has it, a cockroach has it, an atom has
>it.
>
> > Perhaps you could explain how man
> > as a collection of value patterns is subjectively motivated toward a
> > greater
> > ("dynamic?") value.
>
>Motivation towards higher value (betterness) is built into the universe, as
>represented in all creatures (value patterns) great and small. It's the
>answer to, "Why survive?"
>
> >  Or do you, like Bo, regard Intellect (the power of
> > knowing or realizing) as something beyond subjectivity?
>
>The "power of knowing or realizing" is plain old "experience." Intellect is
>based on the value of the subject/object division which in turn is the
>basis of reason, logic, science. Beyond intellect is the wordless
>understanding that experience and value are inseparable.
>
>Warm regards,
>Platt
>
>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/

.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.