Hello everyone
>From: "Billy Dean" <billydee@inreach.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Self, Free/Determinism : a short essay (again... ;)
>Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:20:03 -0700
>
>Dan and Marco,
>
>Please excuse me for getting into your discussion, but I see your
>comments about reality as another key to help me get a bit better
>understanding of what Pirsig and others are saying about quality.
Hi Billy
Thank you for saying so, and thank you for your post. Please feel free to
jump into any of our discussions here.
>
>My assumption has always been that a sunset, for example, is
>really there--not an illusion. But I have always "known" that I do
>not see the sunset itself. I "see" the result of my brain
>processing the light that enters my eye after being reflected by
>the clouds and the atmosphere. So I also assume that I cannot peek
>over my interpretations of things, my judgments, to get at things
>in the raw. At least not intellectually. And words, upon which we
>build any metaphysic, are how we interpret and judge--accurately
>or not.
Perhaps it depends on who you talk to. A materialistic scientist might say
the sun wasn't really there since the light from the sun takes 3 minutes to
reach Earth so the sun has already sank below the horizon before we see the
sunset. An idealistic philosopher might say we are not talking about a solid
object "sun" but rather our perception of the sunset, so of course it is
really there if we agree it is there. I think the MOQ would say they are
both right.
>
>Paul Rezendes, author of "The Wild Within" teaches that direct
>seeing, which is sensory and in the body, is "better" than
>identification or recognition, which are intellectual and in the
>head. In my opinion, we need both to survive and to experience
>quality. Direct seeing is a metaphor for the ways in which I feel
>I have been able to transcend my judgments and interpretations of
>things to get at them in the raw. Later, my brain kicks in, and I
>go off into explanations and such. Or laugh and lie about it
>around the campfire! :))
I suppose one question might be: If direct seeing is in the body, how does
it work better to tell us what is outside the body? Isn't it better to let
go of the notions of "inside" and "outside" and substitute "patterns of
value"? A campfire is good too.
>
>If this is not at the core of what you folks are discussing,
>please excuse my interruption...
No excuse needed. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:29 BST