From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 22 2005 - 19:34:08 BST
Sam
try this for a description of quality:
The world is a pattern undergoing change.
A person is a sub-pattern in this larger pattern.
A person-pattern changes in causal response to
the totality of patterns-in-change that surrounds them.
A person pattern experiences the quality of these
changes caused in the person-pattern by the changes
in the surrounding patterns.
Quality is the impact of the world on the person.
We do not observe the world it impacts its qualities on us.
Change in the person is the experience of quality. We are
not transcendent subjects observing -without contact- objects.
All this causal stuff goes on making patterns impacting other patterns.
This is SQ. But in addition to all this impact stuff changing patterns,
patterns just change anyway, that's DQ and makes agency and
creativity and emergence possible. We live in a cosmos dominated
by DQ but there is enough SQ for the levels to emerge.Now there's
a miracle.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: MD Tat Tvam Asi, Campbell and Theosis
> Sam and all MOQers:
>
> dmb said previously:
> Sam, you persist in making the assertion that Pirsig's ideas about
> mysticism are polluted by Modernity and SOM. And yet the quotes
> (reproduced below) that I provided... show that this idea is doesn't even
> come close to making sense.
>
> Sam replied:
> I don't understand what the word 'experience' means in Pirsig's sentence
> 'in the MoQ experience comes first', ie, is not 'between a pre-existing
> object and subject'. 'Experience' in western philosophy for the last few
> hundred years has been precisely SOM. Pirsig now asserts that in the MoQ
> 'experience' doesn't imply SOM; he has taken a term which had a fairly
> clear sense in previous philosophy, and has given it a new meaning. I just
> don't know how he does that.
>
> dmb says:
> Really? Well, that explains nearly everything, doesn't it? No wonder you
> can't let go of the idea of the individuality in the intellect, the idea
> of an individual soul in a relationship with God as other, the idea of
> the mystical experience as a subjective, emotional experience. See, this
> is the irony. You have accused Pirsig's view of being polluted by SOM, but
> its actually just that you keep thinking of the MOQ in terms of SOM. I
> haven't looked at the contents of the posts yet, but noticed this same
> error in the thread that was named something like "how do intellectual
> patterns respond to Quality?"
> The error is contained in the question itself, see? The question treats
> intellectual patterns as if they were a subjective self and treats Quality
> as if it were the objective world. But in Pirsig's view these patterns do
> not respond to Quality so much as they ARE a response to Quality. They are
> the fallout from the Quality event, form which subjects and objects are
> later (habitually and automatically) deduced...
>
> Ha! I just realized that I was responding as if you wanted to hear an
> explanation, but since you have already read and studied Pirsig's books
> and have already heard my explanations on these particular matters for
> years I guess there's not much chance that a few more words will make any
> difference. I suppose that's why...
>
> Sam concluded:
> What I think he has done is taken James' understandings a step further,
> but as James was precisely using the SOM sense, I don't think that
> achieves what he wants it to achieve.
>
> dmb says:
> James was presicely using the SOM sense of experience, so Pirsig is too?
> Um, excuse me Padre, but didn't you just get done saying that, "
> 'experience' in western philosophy for the last few hundred
> years has been precisely SOM."? So your eagerness to point this out in
> James only demonstrates a lack of even-handedness on your part, doesn't
> it? On top of that, its completely obvious to any reader that Pirsig
> attacks SOM in very explicit terms throughout ZAMM, not least of all
> because of its inability to deal with mysticism. So I have to say that
> this particular line of arguments is among your weakest and worst. I learn
> nothing from it and only get frustrated at your apparent incorrigibility
> on the topic. Maybe you ought to go back and take a look at that whole
> copernican revolution thing again. You don't have to accept it or believe
> in it, but you could at least understand what it is you're rejecting
> BEFORE you reject it. Otherwise, we will never even be on the same topic.
> Otherwise you will never be able to discuss mysticism with me in any
> meaningful way. Otherwise all the key terms in our debate will continue to
> have two completely different, if not opposed, meanings. Otherwise, our
> little chats just won't be worth the time and effort. Otherwise, they're
> quite pointless.
>
> Thanks for your (wasted) time.
> dmb
>
> "This means Quality is not just the result of a collision between subject
> and object. The very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced
> from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and
> objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the
> Quality!"
> [ZMM Ch19]
>
> "In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a preexisting
> object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or
> object....So in the MOQ experience comes first, everything else comes
> later.
> This is pure empiricism, as opposed to scientific empiricism, which, with
> its pre-existing subjects and objects, is not really so pure." [LILA'S
> CHILD p548]
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> 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 : Mon Aug 22 2005 - 23:00:48 BST