[MD] The Hero's journey

[Dan Glover]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan to Everyone:
>
> (1)What the dog dish scenario serves to illustrate is whether or not the
> world exists before we personally exist, and whether the world will
> continue to exist when we pass back. Call me unreasonably skeptic...
> but how do we know?
>
> Dan:
> (2)It may not be a problem in the practical world, but it seems a huge
> problem here since the MOQ states reality begins with experience. If
> imaginary dog dishes exist as conceptual objects of permanence, then
> reality does not begin with experience and ideas do not come before
> matter. The MOQ is a fallacy... it falls apart.
>
> Dan:
> (3)We jump off hot stoves before forming intellectual patterns like
> metaphysics, sure. And a mystic will (doubtlessly) say Don's dog dish
> is imaginary... that it isn't empirical reality. The mystic will ask:
> what dog dish?
>
> Andre:
> Are you genuinely taken by this stuff Dan or are you just playing along?

Dan:

I am investigating the nuances of the MOQ... I have repeatedly said
that I am not a philosopher so obviously I'm not genuinely taken by
this stuff... but I'm not playing along either. Here is the section
from LC where Robert Pirsig goes into imaginary trees falling in
imaginary forests and where he suggests an answer to the critics of
idealism and how they use it against the MOQ:

Dave:

I’m still hung up on the only (my emphasis) in this referenced
quote: “But quantum theory has destroyed the idea that only
properties located in external physical objects have reality.” (Robert
M. Pirsig, page 14 in his paper Subjects, Objects, Data and Values,
presented at the Einstein Meets Magrïtte conference, Fall 1995.)

I infer from this that man’s reality always has a “subjective”
component, which I believe is born out by the quantum theory, but
not necessarily that there is no external “objective” component. And
that while SOM maintains that we can isolate that “objective”
component MOQ maintains we cannot.

Under quantum mechanics if all men die then the does phenomena
we observe and call “quanta” cease to be? Would the then remaining
universe, other than man being gone, markedly change? Would the
sun, earth, stars disappear or change in any way?

Robert Pirsig:

"This is the usual argument against the philosophic idealism
that is part of the MOQ so it had better be answered here.
It is similar to the question, “If a tree falls in the forest and
nobody hears it, does it make a sound?” The historic
answer of the idealists is, “What tree?”
"In order to ask this question you have to presuppose the existence
of the falling tree and then ask whether this presupposed tree would
vanish if nobody were there. Of course, it wouldn’t vanish! It has
already been presupposed.
"This presupposition is a standard logical fallacy known as a
hypothesis contrary to fact. It is the “hypothetical question” that is
always thrown out of court as inadmissible." [LILA'S CHILD annotation 80]

Dan comments:

When Matt claims there is no reason to be skeptical of Don's dog dish
existing when Don walks out of the room, we are discussing an
imaginary dog dish. Matt is presupposing it. It couldn't vanish as it
doesn't exist. What dog dish?

>Andre:
> (1)The MOQ says that the idea that matter came first is a high quality
> idea...'since complementarity allows multiple contradictory view to
> coexist'(LC annotn 67). The proposition that the world exists before we
> personally exist says it in essence. We are brought up pre-supposing the
> world has existed, exists, and continues to exist regardless of whether we
> are personally a witness to that world or not. Which, of course is a
> wonderful contradiction. Thing is that we are a witness to that world (this
> is a part of the cultural glasses that we carry)and we do not have any way
> of legitimately challenging this view. It is not just a personal empirical
> observation...lots of people share this observation. Remember Pirsig's
> amendment to Descartes' statement.

Dan:

Matt brought up a distinction between personal evolution and world
evolution... he seemed to be saying that they were different in that
the world exists before we personally do. That (in my opinion) goes
against the grain of the MOQ in that it means matter comes before
ideas. This is the entire annotation that you cited only a small
portion of:

Robert Pirsig:

This is difficult to untangle. Bohr’s “observation” and the
MOQ’s “quality event” are the same, but the contexts are
different. The difference is rooted in the historic chicken-
and-egg controversy over whether matter came first and
produces ideas, or ideas come first and produce what we
know as matter. The MOQ says that Quality comes first,
which produces ideas, which produce what we know as
matter. The scientific community that has produced
Complementarity, almost invariably presumes that matter
comes first and produces ideas. However, as if to further
the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that matter
comes first is a high quality idea! I think Bohr would say
that philosophic idealism (i.e. ideas before matter) is a
viable philosophy since complementarity allows multiple
contradictory views to coexist. [LILA'S CHILD annotation 67]

Dan comments:

Here RMP states that Quality (experience) comes first, which produces
ideas, which produce what we know as matter. I think the confusion is
that the presupposition that matter comes first is a high quality idea
in our culture. When you say: "It is not just a personal empirical
observation...lots of people share this observation" you are in
essence claiming reality begins not with Quality (personal empirical
observation) but from the foundation of a material world. But perhaps
I am wrong in reading what you're saying in that way...

>Andre:
> (2) I fail to see this as a contradiction. Reality does begin with
> experience but, have you ever been able to 'hold' or 'slow down' the period
> of waking up? If that is not an experience I do not know what is. It is
> precisely during this period that you return from deep sleep...nothing...the
> moment about which Marcel Proust wondered...how do I know it is 'me'
> returning to 'where'? Soon static patterns will releave you of your
> hopelessly lost wanderings and force you body onto you, your surroundings,
> your memories, your bed, your work your ladidadida... and that it IS time to
> put some food in Fido's food bowl. This IS DQ/sq. The sq is the stability,
> the (seemingly) permanent, the latches we all need to make sense of this
> place (excepting Lucy of course).

Dan:

Well, I wasn't speculating on different kinds of experience so much as
contesting the notion that experience begins with a pre-existing
world.

>Andre:
> (3) I am not convinced that a true mystic will question the empirical
> existence of the dog dish. Zen, in this case, is radically empirical. When
> you ask the mystic if the dog dish is really real, then you are pressing her
> to adopt a different perspective. But that is beside the point anyway. The
> dog dish is a static pattern of quality and keeps itself together regardless
> of whether or not you are in the room... and no, this will not be part of
> your own experience, in the same way that I do not have to worry about
> whether the trains exist or will run tomorrow to get me to my work. The
> existence of trains, work, dog dishes, the MOQ etc are all part of what dmb
> calls the 'objects of permanence'. They are static patterns of quality. All
> those things that have been handed down to us in the form of all static
> patterns...buildings, dictionaries, myths, logos...you name it...it is
> there.
>
> Do I have to question the research thatv tells me that one in six Americas
> live below the poverty line? Do I have to interview every 'sixth' American?
> Do I have to question the stat that tells me that every eighty minutes one
> American war veteran commits suicide? Do I have to doubt the Horishima
> bombs? (I wasn't there?). Do I have to doubt the Vietnam War? (I wasn't
> there) Do I have to believe the majority of Germans saying (about the
> atrocities committed under the Nazi's) "wir haben es nicht gewust?. Do I
> have to believe a very popular Dutch catholic cardinal, commenting on child
> abuse within the catholic church: "wir haben es nicht gewust"? (after the
> interview journalists found a letter that says that he DID know but
> transferred some of the perpetrators to other 'flocks'.
>
> It's turned out quite a post and I didn't mean to. Discussions about
> imaginary dog food bowls are undoubtedly important but I think that the MOQ
> also points to some issues that are more important and I got carried away
> with those a bit I am afraid. I really think we should rage at present.

Dan:

You make some very valid points... thank you. I found the question
about a pre-existing world to be of interest... it seemed as though it
might be important but I am probably wrong.

Maybe you're right... perhaps it's better just to drop the question
and rage against more important matters. Maybe we can all share
you-tube videos with each other and fill our posts with quotes from
philosophers who really know what they're talking about rather than
attempting to puzzle it out on our own...

Personally, I do have more important matters that need my attention...
thank you for reminding me... I bid you good night.

Dan