RE: MD What's the difference?

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 15:52:01 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD What's the difference?"

    > I'll share my thoughts here. Though they might not be defined in the
    > MOQ sense, but MOQ has shaped many of current thinking patterns.
    > Reality:
    > Funny you should ask. I have thinking a lot about reality lately. One of
    > the "undeniable facts" I have come to is that we function from a lot of
    > different realities. This speaks to where Pirsig goes ahead and defines
    > quality as reality. The question that comes to mind is which is the right
    > way to understand reality? Pirsig's MOQ is a powerful way to understand
    > reality. Obviously more powerful than SOM this has served us as a static
    > pattern of reality for so long. But as I mentioned we function in our daily
    > lives in a lot of seamless realities or static patterns as it were. In our
    > singular lives or being alone we have multiple realties from which we learn
    > to create through our lives, which have to do a lot to do with the various
    > environments from which we exist from. A common cultural term we use to
    > define some of these realities is "roles". These roles can transcend from
    > the inorganic to the intellectual. These roles themselves play an
    > important part of the established values of static patterns and also I
    > believe also play a part in the establishing the capacity for DQ.

    No doubt each of us functions from different realities in the sense that
    we have different life histories and experience different value
    experiences. But, according to the MoQ, the primary reality we
    universally experience is the reality of values or morals prior to any
    division into differences. As Pirsig says:

    "It says that values are not outside of the experience that logical
    positivism limits itself to. They are the essence of this experience.
    Values are more empirical, in fact, than subjects or objects."(5)

    > Now:
    > Not to bring up a skewed point but time is critical part of reality.
    > Without it I would suggest that quality would collapse. Interesting
    > enough the past and future have strong stake in the now and also impact the
    > quality or reality.

    Agree. I would go a step further and claim that Now is so critical to
    Quality/Reality that it becomes their equal. Even our experiences of the
    past or future occur in the Now.

    > Existence:
    > I agree with Sam when he writes
    > "I think there are differences but it all depends on context.
    > Again I would switch context with reality, quality, or values and you
    > get the same thing.
    > Find a value and you will find an existence.

    "Context" could well be added the list of equivalents. Think of
    Experience/Value providing the primary context, background or "field" in
    which all else, especially language and concepts, occurs.

    > "I" or self:
    > I think of Decartes, "I think there I am" from there we talk about a lot of
    > contexts.

    Pirsig might change this to, "I value, therefore I am" of "Value has me,
    therefore I am."
    > Apprehension:
    > "I think of trouble and I am concerned." Again a context thing.

    I prefer "apprehension" because it conveys pure, direct, intuitive
    experience without the intervention of models or maps, language or

    > Quality:
    > Which aspect of quality or reality?

    The Quality prior to "aspects."

    > Experience:
    > Values or quality in action. Whether it is DQ or SQ.

    Rather, prior to DQ or SQ or any other concepts.

    > Consciousness:
    > The ability of a living thing to be aware of it's reality.

    Again, there is no separation between a living thing and it's reality. A
    noise and your hearing it is one indivisible fact.
    > The Tao:
    > Don't know much about Tao, but it seems to try to find congruencies in the
    > many different realities.

    There are many words I could have added all pointing to the same
    phenomenon including the One, Absolute, Godhead, Mind, Atman,
    Brahman, Self, Buddha, etc. I used the Tao to represent them all.

    > Platt writes, "I think they're all different words pointing to the same
    > indefinable phenomenon. But, I could be wrong."
    > I don't know if this is the case, again it is the context thing. Stating
    > "pointing to the indefinable phenomemon" suggests to me that we are talking
    > about a converging reality. I see reality being far more divergent in
    > nature.

    No doubt. The multiplicity of reality is a multiplicity of values, mostly in
    static patterns but sometimes, if we're lucky, in DQ.


    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 : Wed May 07 2003 - 15:53:37 BST