[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Andre Broersen]

Mark to Andre:
If we are talking about the beginning in terms of universe creation (as 
the Word implies), then I have the following question: Does MOQ 
necessarily need a beginning to function. Are the same premises valid in 
a universe that has always existed and is changingf (the Static 
Universemodel)?

Andre:
Hi Mark. I'll give you a few MOQ ideas which may clarify:

'The MOQ holds that experience is the starting point'. (Annotn 31)

'In the MOQ, nothing exists prior to the observation. The observation 
creates the patterns called 'observed' and 'observer'. Think about it. 
How could a subject and object exist in a world where there are no 
observations'(Annotn 65)

Notice here that Pirsig does not ask how there can be an observer 
without anything being observed (as Ham does)or ,for that matter how 
there can be anything thing to be observed without an observer (this 
would set up a contradiction in terms because it would beg the question).

The MOQ starts with sentience and in this sense it would agree with 
Siddhartha Gautama be silent on 'beginnings'. The MOQ accepts the idea 
of a 'big bang' beginning. It accepts this as a high quality 
intellectual pattern of value but, of course is provisional.

Mark:
Secondly, there is personal experience and there is vicarious 
experience,and there is abstract experience, among others. Would a 
mystical experience be included in radical empiricism?

Andre:
Absolutely. If you read ZMM and LILA you'll find that the 'mystical' 
experience is responsible for Phaedrus abandoning his classic-romantic 
split of dividing Quality in favour of the more inclusive DQ/sq 
split.(LILA,pp112-9). This, by the way, has also had some significant 
implications for Phaedrus' ideas about the 
function/role/action/participation of the intellectual level

I would suggest, but stand corrected, that radical empiricism and the 
Buddhist 'path to enlightenment' have very strong similarities. I 
haven't thought this through enough yet though, but maybe an interesting 
path to pursue.

Mark:
I wouldn't bring Buddhism in unless you know what you are talking 
about,that statement is misleading and open to all sorts of interpretations.

Andre:
I just did and am interested in hearing your views.

Mark:

Artificial would imply created by the mind, kind of like a constellation is
artificial.  It seems that radical empiricism can tend towards Scientific
Materialism or Positivism.  In your opinion, is this a correct
interpretation?  I can always learn.

Andre:
What I meant by forcing parts into a unity ( a One, an Absolute) is fine so long as the construction can be verified through experience. This is the touch stone of pragmatism and the rigorousness of radical empiricism. Claim anything you want but make it experimentally verifiable. This is the MOQ's test of truth, this is the MOQ's scientific approach. (and I do not need to remind you that the basis i.e.the fundamental reality out of which the MOQ emerged is indeed DQ/sq).

Scientific materialism and Idealism have been united within the MOQ, each given their due, their place and their role and thus, withing the MOQ umbrella, their limitations.

And I do want to emphasize here Mark that I am battling as hard as you are to get as much mileage out of the MOQ as Mr. Pirsig had intended. It is occupying a large part of my life. I do not know or understand all and everything. That is what we are here for on this discuss.

I think I have a fair grasp on what it is not ( which is useful) but everyday something will pop up and will remind me of a word or sentence of either ZMM or LILA and connect these to moment-to-moment experiences of which our days consist, and illumine those parts least expected. And then revitalize oneself with gumption.