From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Dec 28 2003 - 19:37:55 GMT
Bo:Mankind from the earliest age looked for explanations
of origin and destination, and tried to manipulate the force that
controlled their fate. This is the origin of "religion" and developed
into complex mythologies.
DM: This is entirely how I see it from Nietzsche of course. Are we
now on for a religion that embraces transcience and becoming?
Bo: One may say that everything has a dynamic moment before
> manifesting at the respective level, that - for instance - every
> inorganic pattern has a fleeting moment before it "becomes" a
> photon, but this springs from a the fallacy of believing that
> "substance" is something different from inorganic value.
DM:Please explain. I would agree with "One may say that everything has a
dynamic moment before
> manifesting at the respective level, that - for instance - every
> inorganic pattern has a fleeting moment before it "becomes" a
> photon", in as far quantum physics has to accept probability fields
and give up mechanics it is having to deal with DQ I would suggest. Unless
we
are limiting DQ to the provision of new SQ. I do not in my assumptions.
DQ is associated with freedom in my mind. The inorganic levels of
photons/particles/atoms/molecules contain different levels of freedom moving
from more freedom to less freedom (in the form of mass and combinability).
Hence I see the inorganic levels as moving from almost pure DQ/freedom to
more SQ/constriction and less DQ/freedom. As for
substance/physicalism/matter
these to me are myths.
Bo:The value of the subject/object distinction is an enormous one that
> raised mankind from the mythological era (social level) and a
> prerequisite for science.
DM: I agree with this in so far as we then go on to say that the MOQ (a new
awareness
of DQ/Being/Be(com)ing/ i.e everything that has been ignored and reduced in
the concept
of the subject) is then required to deal with the inadequacies of SOM as
pointed out by Heidegger
and then later Pirsig. So that the fullness of experience is available to
us, all quality, not just
quantity and objective reality, and the distinction of SOM is seen as useful
but deeply problematic.
My journey to DQ certainly began with my science studies and my doubts about
materialism and physicalism.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: MD Buddhism and the MOQ (Was Sit on my faith)
> On 26 Dec 03, at 21:45, khoo hock aun wrote:
>
> > I am always amazed that even in the 21st century the static patterns of
> > referring to East Asia as Far East still persist, a throwback to the
good
> > ole' colonial era when Europe was the center of the world and its
colonies
> > were on the far side of the world. Norway would be in the Far North-West
> > where the Middle Kingdom was concerned back in the 15th Century, but
then
> > the Middle Kingdom did not have colonies. But I digress. :>)
>
> Hi Khoo
> We seem to agree in the previous part of your message so I start
> here where I stand corrected, but the colonial content was all
> accidental. The "Middle Kingdom" is the Chinese reference to their
> location, so we are all prone to the illusion of being the hub of the
> universe. Yes, I live in Far North West - "Ultima Thule" according to
> the Romans - and I feel it right now :-)
>
> > I would say that the intellectual level was already manifest for as long
as
> > mankind could think, and for the 50,000 years man took to reach every
corner
> > of the earth; how was it - as defined by Pirsig, to be the creation and
> > manipulation of symbols.
>
> Here we agree, but for different reasons. The manipulation of
> symbols is wrong as a definition of the intellectual level (rather a
> definition of language). It is however an improvement from Pirsig's
> opening definition (in Lila's Child") of "mind/thinking", but still not
> the intellect that comes through from reading LILA (my reading that
> is).
>
> > I would venture that it did not require symbols for
> > man to think and generate concepts about his world and beyond.
>
> Interesting point, but if we start on the "mental path" everything
> becomes mental and we could as easily make a Metaphysics of
> Mentality. Just to be the "wise guy", doesn't an animal require a
> mental picture to navigate its environment, even without language?
> It is my firm opinion that the enormity of the MOQ (from which even
> Buddhism could benefit) is its making short thrift of the
> mental/corporeal ...mind/matter ...SUBJECT/OBJECT divide as
> something fundamental.
>
> > I would also
> > venture that it was much more commonplace for man to experience Dynamic
> > Quality directly.
>
> "...much more commonplace for man to experience DQ directly."
> Than what?. All of existence had to experience DQ to be able to
> climb the static ladder. So once upon the time inorganic matter
> was the perceiver of DQ.
>
> > I would also venture there were already thriving
> > societies and intellects at work for the last several thousand years.
>
> Something resembling societies starts with primates, but the
> LEVEL starts with the human race. Even so it is several ten-
> thousands of years old.
>
> > The
> > intellectual level certainly did not start with the Greeks - only this
> > particular version of the subject-object divide/metaphysics that Western
> > civilisation has been built up from.
>
> Here we disagree, but wait.
>
> > I also do not think that religions of the old (Semitic or otherwise)
arose
> > as competiting tribal beliefs and their origins assigned to social
level.
> > Religions, had on the contrary, everything to do with enlightenment -
with
> > mysticism, with meditation and with experiencing Dynamic Quality.
>
> As said, all levels spring from some pattern of the parent level
> being dynamic enough to "hear the call" of DQ, thus perception og
> DQ perception experience does not start with the social
> development. Mankind from the earliest age looked for explanations
> of origin and destination, and tried to manipulate the force that
> controlled their fate. This is the origin of "religion" and developed
> into complex mythologies. The Mosaic era however was terribly
> recent in this picture, just before the Q-intellectual development
>
> > The
> > metaphysicians, humans who saw through the patterns in their
meditations,
> > who "saw the light" so to speak - each, I repeat, tried to convey their
> > insights in the language and context of their times - and over the
years,
> > after they had long gone, only then did the social patterns take over -
and
> > their followers blindly made their word dogma.
>
> One may say that everything has a dynamic moment before
> manifesting at the respective level, that - for instance - every
> inorganic pattern has a fleeting moment before it "becomes" a
> photon, but this springs from a the fallacy of believing that
> "substance" is something different from inorganic value. Thus to
> speak of some dynamic stage of religion before becoming dogma
> is the said fallacy at the social level.
>
> > The intellectual level was already pervasive in South and East Asia
2,500
> > years and it was not buddhism that gave birth to it. If anything,
buddhism
> > arose as a counterpoint to the philosophical communities of the time to
> > point out that the intellect, for all its fascinations, was a
metaphysical
> > dead-end.
>
> OK I gladly accept that, then Buddhism was/is a counterpart of the
> Quality Idea. This is what Pirsig tries to convey in the RT part of
> LILA.
>
> > And this is what I believe the religions of old, especially their
> > mystical inspired schools tried to do.
>
> The ancient mythologies - which was the religions of their era - had
> no mystical "school", it was an explanation of origin and fate, and
> gave mankind a satisfactory outlook. The Semitic Christendom that
> replaced it was just a more powerful Godhead, but by and by the
> "spiritual" content of Greek subject/object metaphysics entered
> into it all and it became a soul/body thing ..and a mystical element
> entered.
>
> > Khoo:
> > Are you arguing for a place for intellect in the MOQ that validates
> > subject-object metaphysics in the hierarchy of levels
>
> Yes I am. Intellect as it sees itself is subject/object metaphysics,
> in the Quality context it becomes the (mere) value of the S/O
> distinction.
>
> > and without which ther
> > e can be no transcending to Dynamic Quality?
>
> Hmmm? The MOQ postulates a DQ inference in all transitions from
> one level to the next, so DQ is always beconing up ahead. No
> special transcedence takes place at the intellectual level.
>
> > If I read the above right,
> > and I have tried, albiet unsuccessfully, to make sense of the SOLAQI
> > argument, would you be saying that SOM as MOQ's intellect validates
material
> > objectivism, therefore giving it value?
>
> YES!!
>
> > What kind of value would that be
> > in terms of SQ/DQ?
>
> The value of the subject/object distinction is an enormous one that
> raised mankind from the mythological era (social level) and a
> prerequisite for science. It is plain that the cultures of Asia have
> gone trough that stage long before Europe to be so easily adapted
> to the technological attitude, but also transcended the intellctual
> with some Quality-like insights like Buddhism.
>
> > Patterns/Unpatterned Reality?
>
> Why is intellect as S/O so difficult to understand? After the Greek
> had arrived at a nature independent of what humans may think
> about it, the foundation was laid for an inquiry into this reality by
> the human mind. See!? A subject different from objective nature: a
> pattern that has followed mankind (in the Western hemisphere)
> ever after, driving its S/O split into everything ...until the MOQ.
>
> > With all due respect, I
> > must say that there is no such thing as the "highest" samsara. Samsara
is
> > the wheel of rebirth, the 31 planes of existence where all
interdependent
> > origination takes place, where all patterns form, from the inorganic,
> > biological, social to the intellectual levels (in Pirsigian terms) and
> > dissolve again.
>
> OK my effort to sound mystic wasn't a success, but even in the
> "wheel of rebirth" there is some scale of value ..no? So quality
> plays a role in Buddhism too.
>
> Sincerely
> Bo
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Sun Dec 28 2003 - 20:06:17 GMT