Re: MD MOQ in time and space

Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 12:15:43 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society II"

    Hello Ham,

    Here's my attemp to raise your faith in my little MOR (Metaphysics of Reinier)

    You said:
    >No significant difference. The discrepancy here is your refusal to accept
    >physical reality; but one can't dismiss this experience just because we
    >don't believe it to be the TRUE reality. To avoid further confusion on this
    >matter, I suggest that we define everything that occupies space or occurs in
    >time "existence". (I've as much done the same in my thesis.) We can then
    >label what remains as "Not-other", Quality/Value, primary source, or
    >Essence, as you prefer.


    About the proton-value example you say:
    >There is such a thing in Existence, Reinier. Quantum particles may well be
    >only an existential illusion, but somehow we must account for them.

    Given our agreement mentioned above I will accept a proton as a reality that exists independent of OUR experience.

    You continue:
    > My theory is that the design of the cosmos is "implanted" in the not-other
    >(self), along with proprietary sensibility, in such a way that knowledge is
    >universal. Otherwise, we would all be experiencing a different universe,
    >which would make no sense. (I've dealt with this concept in my section on
    >Nothingness, and made reference to it elsewhere in my thesis.)

    This is where I make the step to the buddha-nature of all things and I see as much evidence or logic for your 'implantation' as I see for my 'buddha nature'. They are both assumptions. You're implemenation might as well be the evolutionary values that compose our brain, cells, molecules and atomes.

    About buddha-nature you say:
    >Well, then, I guess "buddha nature" is another option for defining the

    Both other and not-other, there's no difference.

    About the ass-PAIN-stove you say:
    >Indeed, the pain is even "more real" than the stove! The point I'm trying
    >to make is that pain is a sensation or feeling, whereas recognition of a
    >stove is a rationalized concept. Don't you admit to the distinction?

    Your brain compares the visual/pressure signals from the stove when you look at it/touch it, with a memorized mental picture of a stove and this results in recognizing and labeling the stove.
    Your brain also compares the signals of your nervous system with a mental picture in your brain and the result is pain. It's the same concept but the pain is a genetic/biological mental picture introduces somewhere in evolution, while the stove is a intellectual picture, introduced in this lifetime.
    This is as far a distinction as I would go.

    You think you allmost convinced me when you say:
    >You begin to see the light:
    >> I see what you mean, and I think I agree, but I think
    >> his theory can be expanded in that direction, or rather,
    >> 'my' theory can apply MOQ in the area for which MOQ
    >> was written, and can follow the same reasoning throughout
    >> the areas that Pirsig did not describe.
    >Okay, we'll see how you work this out. I must warn you that several others
    >here have attempted to "rework" Pirsig's metaphysics with not much to show
    >for it but bitter disputes.

    I see no need for reworking it. It's great the way it is but we agree that it's incomplete as a metaphysics.

    You write:
    >Just remember that time/space exists as a phenomenon in physical reality.
    >Hence, the ontology you come up with must include a plausible explanation of
    >how it got here.
    Do they exist? I experience change and I experience dimensional objects. When or where do I experience time or space? You claim it's a physical reality. Where do you base the claim upon?

    You ask:
    >May I make a prediction? After you think through the theory, construct your
    >dissertation, and publish it for all to scrutinize, you will come to the
    >conclusion that it won't work without a primary source -- a Creator or
    >essential cause. This is what's missing in Pirsigian metaphysics, and why
    >it is constantly being reconstructed, re-evaluated, and endlessly debated.
    >DQ would have been Pirsig's primary source, had he not feared that it was
    >too "supernatural" or religious for his nihilistc postmodern audience. His
    >solution was to construct a complex multi-level heirarchy of values, hoping
    >that we wouldn't notice the need for an absolute source.

    I agree that too much attention goes to the level and morals part of the MOQ, too little on the metaphysical aspects (i.e. creation, origin of all).
    Concerning your prediction: You already say it yourself, DQ is the source, I'll do my best to give my vision on this (see below).

    And finaly you end your post with:
    >> We have to distinguish what we experience in our existential (SO)
    >> world from the ultimate reality that "admits to no other".
    >> That reality is the immutable Essence.
    >I think we're clear on our major difference. You're entering this new
    >non-material environment biased by an earlier belief system (which, I
    >suspect, is "anti-theist"). Sooner or later, you'll come to terms with your
    >philosophy. When you do, I hope that you won't be inclined to "throw the
    >babe out with the bathwater", as so many in this forum have done -- in my
    >opinion, to their detriment.
    First about my supposed "anti-theist" background. I disagree with this. I come from a religious-family but somewhere along the way I've rejected that . I've always been looking for science to provide the answers, but with a feeling that something wasn't right. The past 5 years or so, I've taken an interest in Zen and the like. I've discoverd that I didn't earlier reject religion perse, but regional institutes, rituals, dogma's and hypocrism. The 'known' religion that best fits me therefor I would say is Buddhism. But I don't consider myself a buddhist because I know too little of it, and because I don't want to put a label on this part of me.

    For me the start and end and the source is Unity (DQ). From a Unity-point of view there's nothing but that, or else it would not be unity. Still this is not what we experience. The big-bang may have been a disruption of this unity, which instantly create duality. DQ turned into SQ wich resulted in Value (or DQ valued wich resulted in SQ). Then you can pretty much follow Pirsigs evolution of values upto today's reality, which is only reality from our dualistic point of view. Unity still exists though, giving up all values (and SQ) results in unity. And from a Unity-standpoint, all this does not exist, or rather, it does exist but is an undifferentiated part of unity.

    Here you go Ham..... now aim and..... SHOOT!

    >Thanks, again, for another opportunity.
    Hope you'll still find it interesting enought to continue yet another round.

    Kind regards,

    Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
    As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at

    Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

    New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
    Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
    Download now at

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 13:37:34 BST