Gary,
Gary Jaron wrote:
> But if all our
> beliefs, ideas, theories, etc can be called maps- this is all the that we
> can know, then why is there not a territory? Isn't the making of maps, our
> attempts at describing the experience of living , all about referring to a
> territory , a thing external to our internal experience? Help me out here,
> I don't understand.
Way, way back I said there is a territory: Quality. But Quality is
featureless, formless, etc. Therefore it is unmappable. Everything else
is a map, in the sense that it is a system of signs. A sign is a thing
that leads us through itself to other things. But (and here I am passing
on revelation, so to speak, ie, I can't prove this, but I think it is an
idea worth contemplating), these other things are themselves signs,
leading us ever onto further signs. You said it a while back: perception
is a kind of thinking. Barfield calls it figuration. This implies that
nothing exists except concepts. So, all is word-like, not thing-like.
Add Quality to move us through the words, and you've got a Universe.
There is nothing external to our experience "about which" we make
concepts. Instead we make concepts in order to have experience. Or
rather, "In the beginning was the Logos" -- concepts speak in us, making
a temporary division into observer and observed.
(The preceding is, I realize, not fully coherent, and is not intended to
be contained within the MOQ.)
> [Scott]> Now as to whether the mystic's knowledge is certain. Merrell-Wolff
> says
>
>>it is (the transcendent knowledge, remember, not the map). You say it
>>isn't. How do you know? I don't know that it is. But I'll take
>>Merrell-Wolff's word over yours. And that is because what he does
>>describe and the way he explains it makes more sense than your
>> metaphysics.
>
> GARY: Here you seem to point out the same thing. Transcendent knowledge is
> certain knowledge. Now, it is okay for him to believe this. It is okay for
> you to believe this. Hey, I believe a lot of what the Rabbi's taught, not
> all, but a good deal. I also believe what Pirsig wrote and Lao Tsu. But,
> real honesty leads me to say that belief does not make it true.
Right here is where you have apparently been misreading me. This "belief
does not make it true" is, of course, correct for those stuck in
relative consciousness. Merrell-Wolff's point is that when in
transcendent consciousness there is no more "belief". there is only
Truth. I depend on belief (rightly or wrongly). The mystic claims not
to. So of course my putting my trust in mystics is a belief, not truth.
> A willingness to believe is a leap or step of faith. We are human, as Vicktor
> Frankl points out we all are searching for meaning. And without a sense of
> meaning we will stop living. But, faith and belief does not make any true.
> Even if everyone on the planet believe an idea, so long as it was an
> abstract idea, all that belief does not make it true.
> We can find certainty when we are dealing with concrete sensory experiences
> or at least come closer to certainty the more we are referring to concrete
> things. The more abstract the thing/idea the more a leap of faith to
> certainty it is. Try to have certainty of Quality or Freedom or even
> theory. I recall a recent thread were everyone was trying to define the
> word 'theory' to each other. And they all got stuck. Abstract terms are
> hard to pin down, hard to describe with precision and hard to get 100%
> agreement on.
> This is what I am getting at. I believe in Pirsig's metaphysics. Does this
> make it true? No. It makes it true for me, and all of us here on this
> discussion group. We can't make it true by believing in it. We can get
> other people to accept it as valid and true for them. Is it 100% completely
> and totally descriptive of the total true nature of reality? No. It is
> not, it can not be. Pirsig is just one guy and his map can only describe a
> part of reality. Other peoples maps describe other aspects of reality.
> Reality is infinite and thus theoretically we may need an infinite number of
> maps to accurately describe and understand reality.
And I say that maps that emphasize a non-mapped reality are of less
value than maps that wonder about maps, and in general would prefer to
drop the map/reality distinction, but not the maps/Quality distinction.
- Scott
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 - 16:02:29 BST