Re: MD Where am I?

From: David Morey (
Date: Sun Oct 03 2004 - 18:12:23 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD MOQ DQ SQ Awareness"

    Hi all

    I am currently working on an essay to relate the MOQ to the notions
    of an inner realm of SQ called realm 1, a perceptual realm of SQ called
    realm 2, a cosmos of SQ that moves in and out or our perceptual
    world of realm 2 and a realm 4 that contains all possible SQ that is the
    source of DQ and a realm of universals in this sense.

    These 4 realm labels may help our discussions. Realms 1+2 are
    always within the scope of our awareness. Realms 3+4 are beyond
    the scope of our awareness but we can postulate their existence as
    SQ patterns clearly move from realms 3+4 to realms 1+2 and out
    again -absenting themselves. Now think how we become aware of a
    beautiful tree due to SQ moving between these 4 realms. My essay
    will explain this in full soon.

    David Morey

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott Roberts" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 5:16 PM
    Subject: RE: MD Where am I?

    > Simon,
    > >
    > [Scott prev:]> >The MOQ says that I am a set of inorganic, biological,
    > social, and
    > > >intellectual SQ, capable of responding to DQ. I disagree with this
    > > >definition, preferring to think of myself as a locus of DQ/SQ
    > interaction.
    > >
    > [Simon:]> What's the difference?
    > [Scott:] The difference is that I consider the Dynamic to be a part of me,
    > and not external to me.
    > >
    > [Scott prev:]> >In my view, the MOQ definition is inadequate to the
    > of the self, in
    > > >particular, it seems to me overly dualistic, that there is me here, and
    > DQ
    > > >coming from other than me.
    > >
    > [Simon:]> Both 'me' and 'other than me' are static differentiations
    > therefore neither
    > > can apply to DQ. The MOQ is not dualistic in this sense i.e., the SOM
    > sense.
    > [Scott:] It is the MOQ that says that DQ is not-me, so it must be
    > presupposing a distinction into me and not-me.
    > In any case, the DQ/SQ split is also a differentiation. The error of the
    > MOQ (and of SOM, and all nominalisms) is to see differentiation
    > (categorizing, conceptualizing, etc.) as something that only intellectual
    > humans do, and as being a static covering up of something prior and pure
    > and dynamic. Instead, one should, in my view, see differentiation as
    > dynamic and creative. Of course, one should not become attached to any one
    > pattern of differentiation.
    > >
    > [Scott prev:]> Also, I think it denies creativity, and the
    > > >ability to make choices, on the part of the self.
    > > >
    > > >But since I consider the self to be an irreducible mystery, one should
    > not
    > > >think my definition solves any of your questions.
    > >
    > [Simon:]> The self is no mystery to Buddhism, it was rejected thousands of
    > years ago
    > > as a meaningful philosophical concept. Have you ever experienced your
    > > 'self'? It only 'appears' when you try and write something down to
    > describe
    > > experience.
    > [Scott:] It's not that simple. Buddhist logic shows that one cannot assume
    > that the self has inherent self-existence, which is the rejection you
    > mentioned. On the other hand, one cannot say "I don't exist" without being
    > self-contradictory. In the end, the Buddhist resorts to the tetralemma:
    > cannot say that the self exists, one cannot say that the self does not
    > exist, one cannot say that the self both exists and does not exist, and
    > cannot say that the self neither exists nor does not exist.
    > Or as Nishida Kitaro might put it: the self exists by negating itself, and
    > negates itself by affirming itself. This is an example of his logic of
    > contradictory identity. If one ignores it, for example, by just rejecting
    > the concept of self, one falls into nihilism, and not the Buddhist "Middle
    > Way". The Middle Way is about keeping one's thinking in an undecidable
    > state, neither rejecting nor affirming the self.
    > >
    > [Scott prev:] > "DQ/SQ interaction" is
    > > >just another name for the mystery. My complaint with the MOQ definition
    > is
    > > >that in "solving" the mystery, it reintroduces dualism, if not theism.
    > >
    > [Simon:]> Dualism, maybe, but not in an SOM way. Theism? Nonsense. The MOQ
    > is as
    > > theistic as Buddhism i.e., not at all.
    > [Scott:] I am aware that Pirsig considers the MOQ to be, as he puts it,
    > anti-theistic, not just atheistic. Of course he is referring to theism as
    > belief in a personal God, and there is none of that in the MOQ. However,
    > unless mysteries like "where does intellect come from" get better answers
    > than "DQ created it", the MOQ verges on the theistic.
    > - Scott
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 03 2004 - 18:17:00 BST