[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[118]

Hi Ant,
I could equally say that by not answering my questions you have not
read the book either.  So here we are at an impass since you refused
to give me your interpretation of what evolution means.

You choices as far as I can tell:
1) Quality evolves as is presented in the theory of evolution.  This
would signify that Quality is impacted by outside pressures, which are
not Quality
2) Quality evolves according to an internal directive.  This would
indicate that Quality has intelligence.
3) Quality evolves purely out of chance.  This is better known as random change.

Perhaps there is a fourth or fifth choice that you have which is your
choice(s).  Simply stating that you cannot answer because it has been
already written would signify that any quote you present is redundant.
 I do not think that is why you have provided me with quotes.  Instead
it appears as if you are dodging the issue possibly because you have
not given it much thought.  We are all guilty of that.

With your point about value before SO.  You are stating that since
Descarte came up with his thinking being proof of self it was not
discussed before that.  Well, just to use Descartian words, I will
say: "I am therefore I think."  If this does not put value before any
SO creation I do not know what does.  This awareness is part of a
perennial philosophy which was well written about by Huxley.  This
value before SO goes way back to before the Egyptians.  It was the
Egyptians that recognized that power came from giving things names
(creating objects).  So you need to go back at least that far to see
what has been done since then, in my opinion.

That values can be ordered and form a framework is what Taoism is all
about.  Lau Tsu and others used their writings to teach politicians
and rulers about morality.  Perhaps you have not read much from the
Taoist body of work, but it is all there.

What Pirsig has done is present these things in Western Tongue.  He
even says as much, read the book.

However, perhaps you means something completely different when saying
that value comes before SO, and a moral framework.  Perhaps you can
educate me so that I can speak with your vernacular.  I am willing to
learn.

Cheers,
Mark

On 4/10/12, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Here's a response to your last post:
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Mark Smith stated April 9th:
>
> I only found one question that requires an answer in your comments:
>
> Mark previously:
> Yes, Pirsig wrote some good stuff, but none of it was new by any means.
>
> Ant McWatt commented:
>
> Not putting values ahead of subjects and objects in the empirical train of
> events wasn't a new idea?
>
> Then adding in LILA that these values are evolving and can be ordered in a
> moral framework?
>
> Where else have you read those two particular ideas (pre-Pirsig)?
>
>
> Mark:
> Well perhaps I can provide you with some education here.  I would
> recommend you read Thomas Acquinas for some ideas of what has been
> done before within the moral framework.  Then perhaps some of the
> sutas from Buddhism, which Pirsig draws heavily from.
>
> I am not sure if you are familiar with Husserl, or if you have read
> his works and dismiss him as not relevant.  Before him there was David
> Hume of course, which you must have covered in your Ph.D.
>
> Let us not forget Parmenides and all those guys.  Pythagorus draws
> heavily from Egyptian alchemy.  And then there is the Emerald Tablet.
>
> We can discuss each of these things at length if you do not see the
> context they provide Pirsig for his "new interpretation".  I would be
> most happy to share this knowledge with you if you are sincere.
>
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> That's a good selection of philosophers/philosophy that you have cited there
> Mark and you're correct they all have covered areas that Pirsig examined
> later on but, as I said previously, none of them put values ahead of
> subjects and objects in the empirical train of events or/and added that
> these values are evolving and can be ordered in a moral framework.  That is
> original to Pirsig.
>
> Anyway, it's highly unlikely that anyone could have had the idea of "putting
> values ahead of subjects and objects in the empirical
> train of events" before Rene Descartes "Meditations on First Philosophy" of
> 1641 as that was when modern day SOM made it's first appearance.  So that
> straight away knocks out Aquinas, the Buddha, Parmenides, the Emerald Tablet
> and Pythagorus out of consideration.
>
> Edmund Husserl "the father of phenomenology" was close to Pirsig by placing
> values as some kind of inter-subjective phenomena
> but it's still not taking that Copernican revolution that Pirsig took in ZMM
> by making values primary and subject & objects
> secondary.
>
>
>>Before him there was David Hume of course, which you must have covered in
>> your Ph.D.
>
> Yes, as it happened I did.  Again, because, Hume hadn't thought that
> subjects and objects could be considered as patterns of value, he left us
> with the "is-ought problem"; again another result of accepting Descartes'
> SOM dualism (at least implicitly).  If you do get round to reading Chapter 3
> of my PhD, you can see that the "is-ought problem" can indeed be resolved by
> using Pirsig's MOQ:
>
> "What is so exciting philosophically in Pirsig’s book is that we have
> finally found an answer to the argument of the sceptic Hume which has so
> totally undermined moral theory over the last two hundred years: that you
> cannot derive a (subjective) ‘ought’
> from an (objective) ‘is’. [In the MOQ] all experience is moral and ‘objects’
> are mere abstractions [i.e. static
> value patterns].  (D.J. Taylor, 1992)
>
>
> Mark Smith continued April 9th:
>
> But perhaps I misread what you are saying by your question.  If you
> could explain the following statement to me so that I can respond
> correctly I would appreciate it (humor me):
>
> "Not putting values ahead of subjects and objects in the empirical
> train of events"
>
> Also, what exactly do you mean by "evolving".  If you are using the
> standard biological definition, then species evolve in response to
> environmental pressures.  What would the pressures for the evolution
> of value be?  This would seem to tend towards the religious.  Perhaps
> you mean something else by "evolving".  Please clarify.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> I haven't got anything to add to these two questions in addition to the
> considerable proportion of LILA that is used in dealing with them - they
> make it appear that you haven't read the book!?!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Anthony.
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>  		 	   		
> 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
>