From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 03 2004 - 18:12:23 BST
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" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
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
mystery
> 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:
one
> 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
one
> 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
a
> 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 - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 03 2004 - 18:17:00 BST