From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 05 2004 - 18:48:49 BST
Hi all
I have a general comment, when we discuss too
much at once we have no hope of understanding.
Can we all try to discuss one thing at a time more
in a given thread.
thanks
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 7:29 AM
Subject: RE: MD Where am I?
> DMB,
>
> > [Scott prev:]
> > The MOQ says that I am a set of inorganic, biological, social, and
> > intellectual SQ, capable of responding to DQ. I disagree with this
> > definition, preferring to think of myself as a locus of DQ/SQ
interaction.
> >
> > [Simon asked:]
> > What's the difference?
> >
> > [Scott answered:]
> > The difference is that I consider the Dynamic to be a part of me, and
not
> > external to me.
> >
> > dmb says:
> > I think this short exchange reveals a misconception on Scott's part. The
> MOQ
> > does NOT assert that DQ is "external to me". The MOQ asserts a concept
of
> > self that does not allow such a thing to be possible. It is intended to
> > REPLACE the concept of an isolated self opposed to an external world.
The
> > MOQ says there is no self apart from the patterns. You ARE the patterns.
> And
> > ultimately these patterns are not seperate from the dynamic reality from
> > which they emerge. The mystical reality is undivided, but metaphysics
> > divides it anyway.
>
> [Scott:] Then why does he say the self is a set of patterns capable of
> *responding* to DQ? Saying that divides DQ from SQ unnecessarily. (And
> 'external' does not imply 'external world'. In theism, for example, God is
> considered external to the self and the world.) Why does he NOT say that
> the self is where SQ and DQ meet, for example.
>
> Ultimately, yes, there is no separation, which makes it odd that Pirsig
> makes out that the goal of Zen is to go beyond all SQ.
>
> >
> > [Simon said:]
> > Both 'me' and 'other than me' are static differentiations therefore
> neither
> > can apply to DQ. The MOQ is not dualistic in this sense i.e., the SOM
> > sense.
> >
> > [Scott replied:]
> > The error of the MOQ (and of SOM, and all nominalisms) is to see
> > differentiation (categorizing, conceptualizing, etc.) as something that
> only
> > intellectual humans do, and as being a static covering up of something
> prior
> > and pure and dynamic. Instead, one should, in my view, see
differentiation
> > as dynamic and creative. Of course, one should not become attached to
any
> > one pattern of differentiation.
> >
> > dmb:
> > I'm trying hard to be polite here, but I have to say that this repeated
> > point, that intellect (categorizing, conceptualizing, etc.) goes on in
the
> > organic and inorganic world is very bad idea. Frankly, I'm tempted to
say
> > something insulting about your intelligence. Instead, I'll simply ask
WHAT
> > IN THE WORLD DO YOU MEAN? You can't be saying that atoms and worms are
> > capable of skillfully manipulating abstract symbols, can you? And why
> would
> > it be a problem to admit that such things are responding to reality in a
> > much more primitive and limited way? Why do rocks have to have
> "intellect".
> > It seems very clear to me that the pattern of preferences that holds a
> rock
> > together has nothing to do with abstract symbols. Within the terms of
the
> > MOQ, its just plain wrong and in the larger context of the forum, its
just
> > too confusing to describe the first three levels in terms of intellect.
>
> Why bother to explain to you what I mean if you pay no attention to it? I
> said in an earlier post:
>
> "Rocks, considered by themselves, are not intellectuals. But a rock is a
> particular. It points to SQ, the laws of nature, including the laws of
> rockhood, which are universals, which exist as universals whether or not
we
> know what they are. If they were not universals, there could be no Quality
> evolution, only mindless, mechanical evolution."
>
> Since you responded to it, I know you read it, but here you are asking
"You
> can't be saying that atoms and worms are
> capable of skillfully manipulating abstract symbols, can you?". It is not
> atoms or worms that are manipulating symbols. Something Else is (which
> might be called DQ, or Dynamic Intellect), and in so doing is able to come
> up with new patterns. The individual atom or worm is a particular that
> symbolizes the universal (the rules of behavior that they follow). I said
> it before, rocks do not have intellect. They manifest intellect, much as a
> word, which considered as ink on paper is meaningless, but as read is
> meaningful. We normally don't know how to read rocks, though science
> provides a sort of substitute. Barfield calls the ability to read rocks
> "final participation". It's where we are headed.
>
> >
> > As for the idea that static patterns cover up, this is just another way
of
> > saying that the world is an illusion. Its not to be taken literally. Its
> an
> > idea about the ineffable. Its a way of distinquishing the world of
> everyday
> > experience from the world as it is revealed in different states of
> > consciousness. The difference is stark. A mystical experience is often a
> > life-altering, mind-blowing, and deeply profound experience. I suspect
> that
> > if you'd ever had one you'd be far less interesting in undermining the
> > distinction between that kind of knowledge and intellectual knowledge.
>
> [Scott:] I've consistently said that there is a distinction. But what I
> have said seems to not matter.
>
> >
> > Scott sad:
> > Or as Nishida Kitaro might put it: the self exists by negating itself,
and
> > negates itself by affirming itself. This is an example of his logic of
> > contradictory identity. If one ignores it, for example, by just
rejecting
> > the concept of self, one falls into nihilism, and not the Buddhist
"Middle
> > Way". The Middle Way is about keeping one's thinking in an undecidable
> > state, neither rejecting nor affirming the self.
> >
> > dmb sez:
> > Hmmm. As you've presented it here, I'm having trouble seeing the
> difference
> > between the "logic of contradictory identity" and plain old
equivication.
>
> [Scott:] It cannot be understood without actually trying to think it.
> Here's what I said on it before (in a post to you 9/12):
>
> "...any examination of mental activity will bottom out in an irreducible
> contradictory identity (or polarity), which is that two concepts are
> needed, which define each other at the same time that they contradict each
> other. For example, continuity and change, or universal and particular.
> There is also a third word required, for example, awareness,
consciousness,
> value, or intellect, that might be said to be "in-between" the other two
> concepts, and might be said to be produced by their interaction, or might
> be said to produce the two. Or one might say that all three exist as a
> triunity. This three-way business is irreducible, hence I assume it is
> always present in everything. Our intellect, and our language, shows this
> best. Hence, I say that Intellect and Quality are two names for the same
> (non)-thing."
>
> >
> > [Scott:] I am aware that Pirsig considers the MOQ to be, as he puts it,
> > anti-theistic, not just atheistic. Of course he is referring to theism
as
> a
> > belief in a personal God, and there is none of that in the MOQ. However,
> > unless mysteries like "where does intellect come from" get better
answers
> > than "DQ created it", the MOQ verges on the theistic.
> >
> > dmb says:
> > Well, the MOQ's explantions might be a mystery to you, but I fail to see
> how
> > theism or faith follows from that. The MOQ is not a creation myth, its a
> > evolutionary metaphysical explanation and its assertions are based on
> > empiricism.
>
> [Scott:] Are they? How does one empirically justify the statement that "DQ
> is the leading edge of experience"? My senses do not inform me of any
> leading edge, much less that it is appropriate to call it DQ. But that's a
> whole other topic, which I address a bit in another response.
>
> [DMB:]> Pirsig paints a picture of evolution as a process of ever
> > expanding levels of value, increasingly complex patterns of preferences.
> > These patterns do not exist IN the world so much as they ARE the world.
> And
> > in within this evolutionary unfolding, one level gives birth to the next
> so
> > that intellect is the level that transcends the social level, is born of
> the
> > social level of values. I do not find this mysterious in the least.
>
> [Scott:] Can you tell me how it is done? That is, how did the social level
> give birth to the intellectual? Without an account, there is a mystery.
>
> [DMB:] > As I
> > understand it, nothing in the social sciences or biological sciences
> > contradict this interpretation. And as a student of intellectual
history,
> > the idea that intellect only arrived on the scene seems not only right,
> but
> > absolutely brilliant in terms of explanatory power. The tricky part is
> when
> > we turn back to the undivided reality. The tricky part is when we turn
> back
> > to the notion that the world is an illusion. And again, we ought not
take
> > this too literally, we ought not take this to mean that the world is
just
> a
> > meaningless hallucination. Remember that immediate reality is undivided
> and
> > that the DQ/sq split is one of those necessary illusions, one of the
> > divisions that is inherent to thought and language itself. I think the
> > paradoxical meaning of Sri Ramana Maharshi's pithy summary expresses
what
> > Pirsig is doing with the DQ/sq split....
>
> Again, what senses inform us that immediate reality is undivided? I sense
> things and events, not an immediate reality. This is another whole other
> topic.
>
> - 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 : Tue Oct 05 2004 - 18:51:26 BST