DONNY RESPONDS TO KEN ON THE "UNIVERSAL" ISSUE
*****************************
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Ken Clark wrote:
>Donny wrote:
>
> I'm still not sure if this is what Ken means by univeral Q.
>however... but if you're taking "universal" to mean Absolute, not
>relative, standing over-against nothing... then only pure (Dynamic)
>Quality -- 'from thr point of view of the Buddha' (as RMP puts it) --
>counts. Everything in the realm of sq is less than "universal."
>
>Donny,
> I still have not made myself clear. By Universal Quality I mean the
>Quality that came into existence at the time of the origin of the universe.
>Your statement, "Everything in the realm of sq is less than universal," is
>not correct. Sq also came into existence as soon as the temperature dropped
...temperature DROPED -- as opposed to going-up
>enough to form the static atoms of hydrogen and helium
Something is hydrogen or helium by NOT being something else (like
oxygen, zinc or just empty space). Hydrogen as-opposed to
not-hydrogen. That's still relativly defined -- defined relative to
something. Everything w/in the world of "daylight consciousness" and
aristotilian logic (A is not not-A) exists relativily. Something which
was relative to nothing, we would call "Absolute" or, perhaps,
"Universal." Of course the problem is we immedeatly concieve this as
being Absolute as-opposed to relative. But the Absolute is a transendent
concept -- it transends all opposites. That's why DQ as opposed to sq
still doesn't capture the originative power -- what the Buddhists call
Void or *mu*, "nothing." The 'unspeakable.'
Return to the illustration in ZMM. First you have the man and the
beach together considered as One -- no separation. Then the man "takes a
handful of sand and calls it 'reality'" -- the S-O split. And then he
proceds to cut that sand w/ his analytic knife -- even just by applying
word/concepts. Every noun/concept divides the world into two things: those
it correctly applies to (a social/moral distinction) and those it does
not. He divides and sub-divides and stakes these concepts into hierarchys
which then become the "correct picture of the world."
That (at least according to RMP) is how "reallity" comes into
being -- how ALL EXPERIENCE works. So then he talks about the
"pre-intellectual," undiferentiated, aesthetic continum -- the
man-and-beach-as-ONE... "DQ." And the "post-intelectualizing," EXPERIENCE
that takes place in the field of time between the subject and object. But
like i said, If we're still thinking of DQ as the oppposite of sq, or
Nirvana as the opposite of samsara/maya... then we haven't yet got it --
as any good Zen Roshi will be quick to point out to us.
Back to KEN:
> and has been with us
>since. The universe is built up of static atoms under the guidance of
>Dynamic Quality. These atoms have been with us from the beginning. All is
>universal. Our view of humanity being the be all and end all is an ego
>driven mistake.
I never said humanity is the be all end all. Who are you preaching
to, exactly? Not me.
>
>Donny wrote:
>
>The same goes for Ken's whole Big Bang and the 15 billion years
>between us and it... that's a PICTURE that we are generating/entertaining
>in the here and now. That's how it really exists.
>
>Donny,
> By the terms of our understanding of Pirsig's DQ and SQ our universe and
>biosphere are the result of a chain of events that stretch unbroken back to
>the origin of the universe.
That's an intellectual value rythym -- a picture (and a CORRECT
one!! "Correct" not because it matches the in-itself 'facts of the world'
"out there"... but because it is the [current] higest quality intellectual
picture we have developed) we (as a society) create, project and
entertain. That's the MOQ's possition.
>Many of the same atoms that came into existence
>at the beginning are still in there plugging. We can say that those events
>are all in the past and really exist only in our memories but that would be
>an incorrect way of looking at it. We could as well say that a bridge we
>are crossing does not exist because it was built years ago and our minds
>are merely generating the bridge.
Are just making this up? I've never claimed anything like this.
If we are crossing a bridge then that bridge does exist -- clearly! It
exists HOW? It exists as a piece of archatecture we are employing to get
accross this river -- a physical structre. Now, if upon this bridge you
mention to me it was built by your great-grandfather (it's an old bridge)
then your great grandfather does also exist. But HOW does he exist? What
are we really experiencing at that time (that time being the present
situation, for it's the only time we ever really experience)? We are
experiencing your communication to me of some bit of family/local history.
Your great-grandfather exists as an ellement in a picture we are --
together, morally -- projecting via our conversation. But what's "really
real" here: your great-grandfather as a living, breathing person... or our
conversation about him?
>I say that the bridge, and the universe,
>have concretely existed from their origins.
O-kay. (By the way, to say something "existed from it's origens"
tautologus, and to say it's concrete means [in philoso-speak] it exists in
time, it can change... and I agree w/ that, too. Everything that exists,
exists in time.)
> Existence = experience seems a pretty shakey platform upon which to base
>our present foundation. In some cases existence = experience may be correct
>but not in all cases.
This is a principle taken by Pirsig... and it's not that far out
on any limb. But rather than defend Pirsig:
What do YOU mean by "exist," Ken? Does "exist" for you mean
to be made up of matter/energy? Mass, location, charge...? If so... Okay.
But then you have no need for metaphysics. right from the out-set you've
given the whole show over to the scientists and, in this/your view,
metaphysics becomes something out-moded like alchemy and phernology and
astrology. Metaphysics is bad-physics. You may as well call it "BS."
>The BS is getting pretty deep on the Squad lately.
Oh! You did. For you "metaphysics" is nothing more than "science
apologetics." For me, it is a seperate field. You don't (I feel) have to
know much of anything about science to 'do' metaphysics. Metaphysics is
all about: What do we mean by "reality" or "existance?" Like RMP says: A
12-year-old has a pretty good grasp on reality, and you can get locked-up
in the mad-house for being "out-of-touch w/ reality," so clearly whatever
"reality" is... it isn't cosmology, quantum mechanics, and partical
physics.
When we say, "A 12-year-old has a solid grasp on reality," what do
we mean? What are we referning to by this? What is a "grasp on reality"
and how can you tell when somebody's got one? (One -- very good -- answer
is that it has something to do w/ MORALITY, and what's good, and what you
like... but that's just a start -- a direction to go in.) Why don't you
try -doing- some philosophy insted of just degrading it to, at best:
science apologetics, at worse: BS. "Santa clause doesn't exist." Why do
we say that? "Does God exist?" Well, what the heck do you mean by
"exist?" That's metaphysics. No big bang theory required.
If you get some free time, Ken, you might want to check out
Wittgenstein's *Blue and Brown Notebooks*. They're about as good an
introduction to metaphysics as I know of (and have a wonderful
common-sense approach that I think you'd like). Read them and you'll see
why I think your talk about "mindes generating bridges" is so absurde. In
a pinch I'd say, morality generates the bridge, but that's a little more
advanced thought. First, just read the books and see if you can figure out
metaphysics is about.
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST