Re: MD Plotinus, Pirsig and Wilber

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 19 2004 - 19:48:55 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD The individual in the MOQ"

    Hi Scott

    Yes I meant SQ at the end. Your points are
    reasonable. Simple is my English sense of humour
    and plain speaking. I think there is one advantage
    to placing DQ first and that is that it is a clean
    break from materialism, and that DQ needs to
    have a promotion after years of repression.
    But I also like the idea that there is an underlying
    unity that connects all polarities.

    Regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:58 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Plotinus, Pirsig and Wilber

    > David M,
    >
    > > Scott said:
    > > Of course, the Plotinian has the opposite challenge of explaining how
    > > the intellect can materialize...
    > >
    > > DM: My view on this relates to how SQ can emerge from DQ.
    > > The answer is simple. DQ withdraws. DQ is creativity/change/flux.
    > > When does flux end, when DQ withdraws, when instead of flux the
    > > same again occurs, why does it repeat and occur again and form
    > > patterns, because DQ has found value in its creativity, it has
    > > looked upon itself and found itself to have beauty and value, DQ
    > > falls in love with itself, DQ is captiviated by its own outpourings
    > > and captures itself in its own gaze, it looks, the look is the
    > > beginning of duration, what was flux is held for a moment of duration
    > > and sameness, and hence DQ is born.
    >
    > I presume that last line should be "hence SQ is born"?
    >
    > Anyway, I hope you really don't think that this is simple. After all,
    > aren't you using the product of all this: DQ/SQ duality, in the
    > deescription, for example, with the phrase "it has looked upon itself"?
    And
    > "the look is the beginning of duration" is impossible: duration is a
    > requirement for a look. I'm not saying this is wrong, since one must speak
    > analogically, but I think it starts from an incorrect premise: that SQ is
    > to be derived from DQ. In my view, they both realize themseleves in
    > polarity from each other, and together in polarity with Quality.
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 19 2004 - 20:07:17 BST