From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 31 2003 - 18:35:26 GMT
Scot
Why doesn't everyone accept intellect
can happen before society?
I mean my dog can catch a ball.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: MD Self-consciousness
> Hi Scott
>
> > Paul:
> > Yes, sense perception refers to the creation of biological patterns
> and
> > limits what is meant by "static patterns emerging from Dynamic
> Quality."
> > I think I see what you are getting at. Whilst the MOQ is an empirical
> > philosophy, its empirical reality is value, not just biological sense
> > data. This quote from ZMM..
>
> [Scott:]
> I think you're correct on this, though Pirsig first defines empiricism
> as
> "[empiricism] claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the
> senses or by thinking about what the senses provide." [Ch. 8], though he
> goes on to include art and morality and "even religious mysticism" as
> "verifiable". Nevertheless, this attitude seems to me to [be] more than
> a little
> nominalist, since it looks to that which comes from the outside as
> privileged over that which comes from the inside.
>
> [Paul:]
> From a Dynamic point of view, the MOQ can be called nominalist. There is
> nothing fixed and eternal that intellectual patterns stand for. From a
> static point of view, intellectual patterns help produce and stand for
> structured reality, therefore the MOQ cannot be called nominalist.
>
> [Paul prev:]
> > "In the language of everyday life, reality and intellect are
> different.
> > >From the language of the Buddha's world, they are the same, since
> there
> > is no intellectual division that governs the Buddha's world." [Lila's
> > Child p.567]
> >
> > It seems to me that thinking in "the world of everyday affairs" is
> > entirely different from thinking "in Buddha's world," and as such, I
> > prefer to restrict intellect to the former - conscious, deliberate
> > activity such as planning, predicting, calculating, reasoning etc.
> This
> > is perhaps where our disagreement about intellect lies.
>
> [Scott:]
> Yes. My objection to your preference is that we are doing metaphysics
> here,
> which requires us to leave behind the "world of everyday affairs". To
> carry
> that notion of thinking into one's metaphysics is the problem.
>
> [Paul:]
> I'm not sure I agree that metaphysics requires us to leave behind
> everyday affairs; I think the MOQ tries to ground metaphysics back in
> [static and Dynamic] everyday experience whilst providing a rational
> framework in which to incorporate more exceptional [Dynamic] experience,
> such as mystic understanding. As such, I think it is important to
> distinguish between the types of intellect/mind we are discussing and I
> think the MOQ is right to use the static/Dynamic distinction as its
> primary division to point towards non-verbal, immediately apprehended
> awareness and not have it become pinned down with limiting definitions.
> I also think it is right to limit a static definition of intellect and
> mind - one of my biggest problems with the many different schools of
> Buddhism is the varying and confusing use of "mind" [or at least in
> western translations of Buddhism].
>
> Of course, I think there is an overlap in one's overall experience,
> there is no road sign saying "You are now leaving static reality, come
> back soon," but I think Pirsig acknowledges this inherent problem of
> combining mystical and metaphysical terms...
>
> "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that
> there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these
> things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable, and knowable, or
> there isn't any metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind
> of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside
> definition, this means that a "Metaphysics of Quality" is essentially a
> contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity." Lila p.73
>
> ...and goes on and does it anyway.
>
> [Scott to Matt prev:]
> Hence my adoption of the logic of contradictory identity, and why I
> think
> that the MOQ is ultimately a failure. Again, I want to refer to Robert
> Magliola's distinction between 'centric' and 'differential' mystical
> "explanations". Centric explanations are like those you refer to above,
> and
> Pirsig's Quality, DQ, and SQ terminology is a perfect example. As such
> it
> leads the MOQ into error, by stating that mystical experience is "pure
> DQ",
> which leads to the gnostic consequence that SQ is evil, since it gets in
> the
> way of experiencing pure DQ..
>
> Now I don't really think that that (SQ is evil) is what Pirsig thinks,
> but
> why not? Differential mystical philosophy avoids this from the get-go by
> *starting* with contradictory identity. It doesn't allow the reification
> of
> anything (and hence avoids what Rorty doesn't like about metaphysics) in
> one's terminology.
>
> [Paul:]
> The reification of Dynamic Quality is something I think Pirsig tries to
> avoid throughout Lila e.g. when he discusses latching and degeneracy in
> several contexts. However, I think you are right to draw out some of the
> conclusions from a metaphysical system which gives moral superiority to
> mystic understanding. I think the MOQ would say that it is in the
> contexts and circumstances of life that we avoid such outright
> reification and subsequent rejection of static patterns. After all,
> those static patterns include our families, partners, children and
> friends.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Oct 31 2003 - 19:13:44 GMT