[MD] The Hero's journey

[MarshaV]

Dan,

This is an elegant response.  I cannot begin to tell you how much 
I admire your insight, understanding and skill.  


Marsha 



On Nov 12, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Dan Glover wrote:

> 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
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___