Re: MD What's the difference?

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 18:42:06 BST

  • Next message: johnny moral: "Re: MD What's the difference?"

    Scott,
     
    > I have found that I need to make differences, but which words I choose to
    > make this difference is somewhat arbitrary. The difference that I have in
    > mind is the one between what is "before" the DQ/SQ split and what after.
    > Then I sometimes see the need to distinguish one word's use so that with a
    > capital letter it refers to the before, and after to either DQ or SQ. So, I
    > tend to group these words as follows:
    >
    > Before the DQ/SQ split:
    >
    > Quality
    > Consciousness (-without-an-object-or-subject -- see Merrell-Wolff)
    > The Tao
    >
    > as DQ:
    >
    > Awareness
    > "I" or Self (the Big Self, or Atman -- not the ego)
    > Apprehension
    >
    > as SQ:
    >
    > experience
    > reality
    > existence
    >
    > (Note: as mentioned, with capitals, the first two move into the first
    > category. Existence, on the other hand, I take in its etymological sense,
    > as "standing out", and that puts in SQ. Of course, "reality" could be
    > treated the same way (deriving from "res" or "thing"), but it tends to be
    > used more in the first category sense when capitalized.)
    >
    > (Note 2: my selections for DQ is my own idiosyncrasy, which I realize needs
    > more explanation. I've mentioned it before, but haven't really given a
    > thorough case for it. Hope to by-and-by.)
    >
    > I left out
    >
    > Now
    >
    > 'cause I need to think about it some more.
     
    I sympathize entirely with your felt "need" to make differences in my list
    of words (need being a value). I'm aware that all the words are "after" the
    DQ/SQ split--the split being necessary to form words in the first place.
    The problem is that we can't get "outside" experience to point to it with
    symbols or words. We can only pretend. I guess that's why the sages
    say "The Tao that can be written about is not the Tao," or words to that
    effect.

    I think it was E.B. White who wrote, "Humor and paradox get close to
    the fire of truth." Humor shows that our models of experience are just
    models after all. And paradox points up the fact that pure experience--
    that which we know before we know anything else--is indescribable. But
    art which, like reality, begins as an immediate experience, comes as
    close as anything man-made to showing reality prior to division.
    Ironically, we have to divide to survive, an overwhelming value. Which is
    why I suppose Pirsig says art is thought be a "frill."

    Platt

    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 : Wed May 07 2003 - 18:43:57 BST