From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 11:06:25 BST
Hi Squonk
Apologies - long post
> sq: I agree. But your question is whether the, 'View
> from within' is a
> general assumption of the MoQ, which requires 'the
> Quality event.'
The 'view from within' doesn't really require 'the
Quality event'. The two are just discussed together in
this thread.
The 'view from within' is an observation made by Steve
when pondering ZMM and Lila. It chimed with something
I was thinking about. I'll try to explain it.
My initial understanding of the MoQ was that it
postulates that everything has a similar agency of
awareness and choice to our own, to varying degrees.
Agency is universal and ubiquitous in all ‘things’ but
our agency has in some incomplete way apprehended
itself, in the sense that we have at least created a
word for it – consciousness.
Pirsig first sees how Quality describes his own
experience and resolves the dilemma of having to
define Quality as subjective or objective by seeing
that his consciousness and the objects of his
consciousness are both derived from the primary
experience, Quality. Reality, he says is actually
Quality viewed from within –
“In our highly complex organic state we advanced
organisms respond to our environment with an invention
of many marvellous analogues. We invent earth and
heavens, trees, stones and oceans, gods, music, arts,
language, philosophy, engineering, civilization and
science.” ZMM Ch 20
In Lila, he then proceeds to afford the ‘inventions’
with their own ‘view from within’. Without imagining
that this ‘view from within’ is inherent in all
things, the MoQ makes no sense. A stable inorganic
pattern of value such as a rock is both a pattern of
experience for a human and is what holds the rock
together, something within the rock values Quality in
such a way that the pattern of values forms the rock?
If you accept that everything has a ‘view from within’
then everything, in some way, is ‘aware’ and
‘experiences’. And what everything is aware of and
experiences is, according to Pirsig, Quality. So the
patterns we experience also have awareness and
experiences of their own, they are making value
judgements and responses - perhaps unaware that there
is another consciousness experiencing their
‘responses’ as patterns of value.
What do you think?
> Pirsig
> never used that term, rather, he says, 'DQ is a
> stream of Quality events...'
> A stream of Quality events (DQ) is not the same as
> the Quality event. DQ may
> produce a 'view from within' which is a transient
> barrier to harmonious
> being.
I guess what I'm saying is that as soon as the
undifferentiated (DQ)is differentiated (SQ), the view
from within becomes a possibility. The MoQ, to me,
assumes that possibility is so.
> In short, i don't think about the Quality
> event anymore, because there
> are no subjects and objects for me anymore.
I see, you think 'the Quality event' is a device to
help lift someone out from a SO dichotomous view of
experience?
> Your anthropocentric leaning may be the best way to
> pursue a MoQ. SODV
> certainly gives that impression, but can we brake
> away from extension by
> analogy?
We can try! I’m beginning to see your argument, see
below.
> sq: The term, 'Quality event' is problematic. I
> rather wish Skutvik had not
> chosen it for the title of his treatise. But he did,
> and now it is has gained
> currency. If we attend to what Pirsig has said, then
> we discover that he did
> not use the term. I may be making a dreadful
> mistake, but i simply don't
> think of the Quality event anymore. I think about
> DQ, and how it points
> towards the One.
OK, instead of 'the Quality event' can we talk about
the relationship between SQ and DQ. We were discussing
a simultaneous coalescence and differentiation of
patterns. I have in mind a sea of patterns in
coalescence (moving towards DQ) and differentiation
(moving away from DQ). We can pick out waves and give
them names (SQ) but the waves are both a temporarily
differentiated part of other waves (SQ) and ultimately
are still the sea (DQ).
Following this analogy, the ongoing Quality events
that Pirsig talks about is the movement of the sea
(DQ).
Can we use this analogy instead of the Quality event?
> sq: Yes, i see what you are saying. Returning to the
> One must be a
> coalescence of sorts? That which is differentiated
> becomes undifferentiated.
> However, that which is differentiated emerged from
> the undifferentiated.
Merging and emerging, simultaneously and ceaselessly.
> sq: As i understand it, DQ is concept free. I don't
> know if all of SQ once
> described DQ? DQ is a-temporal, so there are
> problems with that i feel?
By described I don't mean in language using concepts.
Captured in the instant but immediately out of date?
Grain in wood? Snowflakes? DNA double helix? Art?
sq: Static patterns exist in a relationship to DQ.
Therefore, we may be able say something about how they
behave in response to DQ? I feel one such striking
mode of behaviour is equilibria, which serves a
function worthy of investigation? Note that DQ is
focused very meaningfully in equilibria?
Good, it is the relationship between SQ and DQ that I
want to talk about, the Quality event expressed that
relationship to me, but we can leave that term behind
now that we have started the conversation and got this
far. SQ-DQ equilibrium, this is important. How is it
brought about?
And
> further, some relationships
> will be so exceptional as to awe. (Awe: Dynamic
> Quality event?) Once the
> presence of such relationships is established, they
> grow like crystals. The
> excellent ones will be such that SQ becomes
> transparent, in a sense?
Transparent, the absence of differentiation.
That is
> empirical, not analogous it seems to me? What do you
> think?
Empirical to 'humans', analogous to suppose an amoeba
or a society experiences 'awe'? Or does the ‘human’,
or ‘amoeba’ or ‘society’ coalesce with other patterns
and is thus no longer differentiated? The only thing
there is, then, is an experience. There is therefore
no need for analogy, is that what you mean?
> The best relationships between DQ and SQ are there
> to be experienced, and
> when experienced, you harmonise with the
> relationship itself and move closer
> to the One.
Followed by a return to the many I suggest. Is it the
natural way, to continually rediscover the
relationship? Is differentiation as necessary as
coalescence?
Such relationships are in nature; they
> are everywhere. An
> exceptional balance between SQ and DQ fizzes with
> ability to effortlessly
> transform?
Yes, noticing the relationship is perhaps the most
important thing for us to do, in the West we had no
compelling framework in which to understand it and in
the most part failed to really understand eastern
mysticism?
> sq: Sam has been pursuing Eudeamonia in the MoQ.
> Eudeamonia is the inference
> that if best relationships exist and are maintained,
> then a human life should
> behave in a similar way. And the observation of
> great characters - excellent
> characters does just this. Excellence may be so
> harmonised that simply being
> in its presence transforms and aligns experience in
> an inclusive wave? Good
> teachers teach without teaching?
Yes, an SQ-DQ equilibrium brings about a kind of
transpersonal coherence, exceptional sportsmen often
talk of such coherence, Eugen Herrigel directly
experiences it. Physicists are aware of it. It would
seem it is recognised at a biological level and
perhaps an inorganic level but we are struggling at
social and intellectual levels. Has uniformity been
mistaken for coherence in the past?
Thanks
Paul
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
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 May 19 2003 - 11:08:09 BST