Donny,
I doubt if we will ever make sense to each other but I will try again.
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."
>
Clark:
To be sure we are clear with each other, I am talking about the only
dynamic and static quality that exists in the universe. That which came
into existence at the time of the 'Big Bang'. To be sure. Static Quality
had to wait until the temperature cooled enough to allow atoms to exist
before it could exist. Dynamic Quality is the 'Force for Greater
Information Content' that is responsible for the organization of the
universe and is still responsible for the continual drive toward complexity
that we observe today.
I do not regard DQ as a mystical force, but simply a push for greater
complexity that resulted from the physical organization of the universe
which itself resulted from Dynamic Quality. The course of Dynamic Quality
is determined by the urgings of the physics of the universe. After
sentience developed then all of the subliminal urgings of humanity helped
to determine the course of DQ. After sentience DQ became different for each
sentient human. That is the source of pirsig's many truths idea. There are
as many truths as there are humans. Static Quality is, of course, the
latching of the possibilities derived from the operation of DQ that
resulted in the physical universe that we are aware of, or potentially
aware of, today. There are no doubt static latches in the universe of which
we are not yet aware.
The whole chain of architecture of the universe that resulted from the
operation of DQ and SQ and forms an unbroken link from the Big Bang until
now is completely analagous to the bridge that we talked about in the
previous letter. We are at the end of a firm physical bridge (link)
extending back to the big bang and are inescapably embedded in Quality.
Donny
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.'
Clark
This simply doesn't make any sense to me. Most of the atoms comprising the
universe are firm and unbreakable by ordinary means and much more permanent
than the bridge that we talked about.
Donny:
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.
Clark:
My concept of this picture is that the little man on the beach arose out
of the beach, the universe, and then began to try to make sense of the
beach (universe).
DQ and SQ form a circular pattern in which each feeds off the other. DQ
is directed by the current state of SQ. DQ then makes selections from the
undifferentiated field of awareness lying before it. These selections then
become latched into SQ where we become cognizant of them. This further
extends the field of awareness available to DQ which then makes a further
selection, which is then latched into SQ, etc. In the case of humanity
(sentience) this results in a different field of awareness for each human
which results in the 'Many Truths' idea.
This is also why I prefer to separate universal Quality and
sentient(human) Quality.
Donny:
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.
Clark:
But Donny, I am not the one who said that the mind generated the bridge,
you said that.
I agree with you that the universe is composed of Morality and Value. The
universe is a moral universe by virtue of its physical organization as
driven by Dynamic Quality. I have no need to appeal to Metaphysics to feel
comfortable with my position in the universe. It all makes sense to me. I
would feel more comfortable if most of the squad would recognize the
sometimes immoral spin that humanity puts on the universe because of a lack
of understanding of our position in it. The Biosphere and the Universe are
doing their best to remain Moral entities in spite of the sometimes immoral
urgings of humanity. We are not helping much. I would be pleased if you
could apply Metaphysics to this problem and straighten it out. Ken Clark
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