[MD] British Emergentism

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 21 Nov 2009 at 12:41, markhsmit wrote:

> HI Platt,
> I like the tuning fork analogy.  The body (or the brain if
> you are so inclined) is what hums.  What is feeling
> the humming?  A tuning fork requires an ear.  If
> the tuning fork experiences its own humming is it
> the metal that is experiencing?  Can music experience
> itself?  I believe so, if we say that the body can experience
> itself.

Hi Mark (Bo mentioned),

Your questions remind me of another: Who is the I that knows me? 
Some say the self is an illusion, so  the question is meaningless. Still, I 
wonder -- and wondering is why I got involved in philosophy in the first 
place. 

> Some interesting speculation about time going on.  What
> may be new is the way in which it relates to MoQ.  It has
> been shown through physiological experiments using electrodes
> and imaging techniques, that our sense of time is retrospective.
> We perceive time in hindsight, directly.  That is we cannot experience
> time until something happens afterward and we look back.
> 
> Another input on this metasense, or experience of Quality before
> the intellect.  This has also been shown with physiological experiments.
> If someone is asked to raise his hand in a moment, the intent (as seen
> though electrophysiology) precedes the actual intellectual realization 
> of the intent by about 300 msec (or one third of a second).  That is
> the decision is made before we realize it.  Our realization is just
> a hindsight intellectualization of what is already happened.  So
> perhaps this is where Quality is occurring.  What does this say
> about free will?  If all are actions occur before we think about them
> happening, the free will is not intellectual.  The intellectual is simply
> used to communicate or store what has already happened.

I hope Bo will chime in here. He has pointed to the same discoveries to 
suggest a relationship with pure Quality experience and our 
understanding of what Pirsig means by ". . . direct experience 
independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions." I think both he and 
you are on to something important in explaining the MOQ. It sort of jibes 
with my conclusion about life and living, namely, that something else is 
going on, I know not what. Whether I'll ever find out, or whether it's 
possible for anyone to find out, is an open question. But the experiments 
you mention seem to open a door to new possibilities.  

> Is Quality at the forefront of free will?  Does this Quality have
> a purpose?

Pirisg has a rather long discussion about free will in Lila, concluding 
with, "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of 
quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic 
Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." (Lila, 12) About 
your question, "Does this Quality have a purpose," he wrote:

"There is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality and 
the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Neither is there a quarrel between 
the Metaphysics of Quality and the "teleological" theories which insist 
that life has some purpose. What the Metaphysics of Quality has done is 
unite these opposed doctrines within a larger metaphysical structure that 
accommodates both of them without contradiction." (Lila, 11) 

Regards,
Platt

> On Nov 21, 2009, at 6:29:03 AM, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:


> From:   plattholden at gmail.com
> Subject:    Re: [MD] British Emergentism
> Date:   November 21, 2009 6:29:03 AM PST
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> On 20 Nov 2009 at 11:34, Andre Broersen wrote:
> 
> > Platt:
> > To be precise, all concepts such as "time" and explanatory dimensions"
> > are intellectual PoV. Which brings to mind Bo's idea that the MOQ is
> > transconceptual and therefore timeless, which fits with Quality being
> > outside definition. Maybe we're getting somewhere after all.
> > 
> > Andre:
> > This is interesting Platt. Before I respond,( I haven't had 'time' to
> > respond to Bodvar's post yet) can you tell me what you mean by 'the
> > MoQ' being 'transconceptual'?
> > 
> > I thought Pirsig was quite clear when he said that the MoQ is a static
> > intellectual PoV ( or does your 'transconceptual' say something
> > important about the intellectual level as well)?
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Andre
> 
> Hi Andre,
> 
> What I meant by transconceptual is knowledge beyond definition, 
> beyond words, "undifferentiated without conceptual distinctions." It refers 
> to our meta-sense, a higher form of understanding that recognizes the 
> beauty of the Parthenon and the truth of Godel's Theorem, a tuning fork 
> in the brain than hums when we stumble upon something of 
> exceptionally high quality -- like the MOQ..
> 
> Regards,
> Platt