On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Ken Clark wrote:
>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.
But you're not talking about DQ. Pirsig's DQ is the undefinable,
"pre-intellectual" (that is: pre-S-O division) aesthetic continuem. It is
not a concept... In a literal sense it is nothing -- NO-thing -- a
non-concept. Now, the definition of "mysticism" in philosophy (get
this, BODVAR!) is that the root source and ultimate ground of reality is
beyond definition, catagory, intelectual (S-O) understanding. BY
DEFINITION the MOQ is a mysticism! Now you can talk about your force for
greater info but that's not DQ; you're just appropreating Pirsig's term.
>
>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.
A thing is relativly defined by contrasting it to what it isn't.
We know what a hydrogen atom is by also -- symultaniously -- knowing what
it is not. That's how language works and that's the "raw stuff" that any
IntPoVs are made from.
Now, something which is not relativly defined, but is absolute or
universal (in the sense that I took Mary to mean "universal" which is what
started this)it has *no relivent contrast*. That's why it is beyond
catagories and words and (thus) beyond intelectualization. (Now, remember,
earlier I said that it could be possible to grasp DQ intellectually... but
what we're getting into there would be a very different system of logic
that synthasized rather than disected [something a kin to... say...
Hegel's dialectic]. But let's not get into that now because this is
confused enough; let's just stick to that good old Aristotilan S-O logic
you are so at home w/.) Do you see the diferance here between the
relative (that which stands over-against something not it) and the
absolute (that which is over-against nothing at all)? Do you see why
Hydrogen is relative to everything that isn't hydrogen?
This is what led to my (as it turned out) provokative declaration:
"Everything in the realm of sq is (in this sense) less than
absolute."
>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.
So?
>
>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."
>
>
>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).
Already you're changing it around.
First, Pirsig says (and first let's get straight what he said
before we try to appropreate it for our on ends, okay?), the man and the
beach are at-one. No distinction. No seperation. Now seperation occurs
when the man takes a handful of sand from the beach and calls that
"reality." In other words, the universe (out there) = the handful of sand
we have picked out / taken notice of. We are now in the field of time,
realtivity, the not-absolute. We now have the knowing subject and it's
known object -- "Object" (if you trace the etamology of the word) is
literally "that which stands over-against."
Now, when we have the original state, in which there is no
seperatness... there is no time, for one thing. No objects, not even
hydrogen. That's the Buddhist Void, or the Tao, or what Pirsig calls
"Quality" (or, DQ). But if you read what's there, you can see he's not
talking about any physical, "out there," spacio-temporally extended
archatecture of the universe. That is "stage 2" you might say. "Samsara"
is what the Hindu's call it.
Back to what Ken said:
>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.
Do you see what you're doing here?
'First there is the sand (universe) -- the obhect that REALLY IS
out there whether we know of it or not. Then there is the man and beach,
(sentience and universe) and THEN DQ and sq become a RELATIONSHIP between
them.' (That's paraphrasing, but am I acurate?)
That's -- I believe -- what pirsig called "SOM," is it not? You
have first the man (subject) and beach (object) and then quality becomes a
relationship between the two -- secondary.
For RMP, quality is primary. The man (sentience) and the sand
(universe) arise out of Absolute Quality. They are two different
types of "static latchings," or what I prefer to call "moral rhythms."
This is the big paradigm shift from SOM to MOQ.
> 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.
>
...
>
> But Donny, I am not the one who said that the mind generated the bridge,
>you said that.
No, I didn't. I have never said that bridges are created by "the
mind" (whatever "the mind" may be.) Good luck trying to find a post where
I claimed that. I dare you.
The knowing subject (I guess what you call mind) and the known
object (the bridge) arise together, RECIPRICALLY, from the "Quality
event." Neither one, S or O, is generating the other. The S and the O
fall out of a primary unity, and, metaphysically, colapse back into that
unity. *Tat twam assi*: 'That thou art." You are the bridge and visa
versa. If anything, I've said the mind and the bridge are two
aspects/menafestations of the same thing. What thing? Morality.
> 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.
SEE?
You've got the universe first as a physical soup of matter/energy
and then it is "moral" because the relationship/structure of the chunks
and currents of the soup have. What you're not saying is that there is
first and (ultimatly) only morality.
>I have no need to appeal to Metaphysics to feel
>comfortable with my position in the universe.
Good! Anyone who did, has some problems. Metaphysics is, at best,
an intresting past-time. I don't think we need better metaphysitions to
save the world, clean-up Washington, stop polution, and find a safe, clean
energy-source. Fintan called metaphysics/philosophy "intellectual
masterbation." I call it "play." If it ain't fun... I sure can't see any
other purpose in it.
Ken, I am not anti-science. I love science (and it's both fun and
practical). I just don't see metaphysics and science as competing fields.
I think they're two very different things.
>It all makes sense to me.
Good! You're further along than I. There are a lot of things that
don't make 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.
I agree. Yes! Like somebody once wrote: It is immoral for society
to degenerate Bio and InOrgPoVs because it is eatting away at it's own
supporting base, and when they give way so will it. It's too bad the MoQ
doesn't say anything like that. If only RMP had wrote something to that
effect in LILA.
Oh, wait.... He did. Nevermind.
>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.
I don't think we need metaphysics, necessarily. Just good, common
sense. It's not metaphasitions who need to tell us that destroying the
eco system is bad ('though Pirsig did, so happy days! [sarcasm]). That's
obvious! Now we need comunity leaders, actavists, politicians, etc. to
light a fire under some buts and get some solutions in place.
You have great ideas, Ken. I don't think they have much to de w/
metaphysics or LILA... But what the hey! To each his own.
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