From: Bart Scholten (scholten.b@hetnet.nl)
Date: Thu Apr 08 2004 - 23:02:53 BST
Hello Rick,
I think intuition should be part of the equation and for me that is DQ (it
comes before anything else!)
Regards
Bart
>>
>> Hi Rick
>
> I have switched the below note to the discuss area.
>>
>> In case it helps this is how I think about the relationship
>> between quality and conceptual thought/metaphysics.
>> Reality=quality=experience=DQ/SQ=Being/Becoming.
>> This is the totality/undivided. There is something irreducibly
>> mystical/unlimited/transcendent/open about experience.
>> It pours through us, it is ungraspable as a whole as Wittgenstein
>> says. However, the SQ, the patterns are graspable to some extent,
>> we can use concepts to grasp more and more of it, although fallibly,
>> although never finally and totally because it always remains to
>> some degree, or in part, transcendent. Like yin and yang, you
>> can move towards yin but never completely eliminate yang.
>>
>> any use....
>> David M
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <Valuemetaphysics@aol.com>
>> To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 5:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: MF Re: March 2004 - Metaphysics and the mystical reality.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rick,
>>>>
>>>> R
>>>> Pirsig says that the MoQ's value is in providing a new central term for
>>>> mysticism, a topic which he believes 'a scientifically oriented mind'
>>>
>>>
>> would
>>
>>>> consider claptrap. I'm not sure why simply renaming a philosophical
>>>
>>>
>> concept
>>
>>>> would convince anyone to reevaluate it (renaming 'creationism' as
>>>> 'intellegent design' didn't change my opinion the quality of that
> theory).
>>>>
>>>> Mark: 5-4-04: Mysticism is not conceptual, that is why many
> philosophers
>>>
>>>
>> and
>>
>>>> scientists have a problem with it. Indeed, you are generating similar
>>>
>>>
>> problems
>>
>>>> by placing the conceptual horse before the mystic cart, and this is
>>>> confusing.
>>>> One of the serious problems i find in these discussions is the nature
> of
>>>
>>>
>> the
>>
>>>> discussion itself; if the discussion is conceptual, then there is no
> way
>>>
>>>
>> we
>>
>>>> are going to progress.
>>>> For this reason, and it is a rational decision, we should leave DQ well
>>>> alone. As Pirsig himself suggests, we can discover a great deal about
> DQ
>>>
>>>
>> by
>>
>>>> discovering what it is not.
>>>>
>>>> Rick:
>>>> I think that scientist he's talking about would just say something
> like,
>>>
>>>
>> "you
>>
>>>> can call it whatever you want but it's still just the same metaphysical
>>>> claptrap."
>>>>
>>>> Mark: 5-4-04: Experience is not claptrap. If a scientist wishes to
> define
>>>> Quality, then let him/her do so.
>>>>
>>>> But I think Anthony gets right to the heart of the question when
>>>> he writes....
>>>>
>>>> McWATT (from his textbook 2:3:5)
>>>> "Firstly, the MOQ centres round the term 'Quality' (with a capital 'Q)
>>>
>>>
>> which
>>
>>>> is used, interchangeably with 'Value'. 'Quality' is used to denote
>>>
>>>
>> reality
>>
>>>> (by which Pirsig means the totality of what exists) in addition to its
>>>> traditional context (i.e. as a synonym for excellence). In LILA, the
> term
>>>> 'Quality' is interchangeable with the term 'Dynamic Quality' when a
> mystic
>>>> viewpoint is taken. This can be confusing at times though the
>>>
>>>
>> understanding
>>
>>>> that Pirsig is alluding to can usually be understood in the context of
> the
>>>> particular passage."
>>>>
>>>> R
>>>> ..I agree with Ant when he notes that Pirsig's use of Quality and
> dynamic
>>>> quality as interchangeable 'in a mystic context' is confusing but I
> don't
>>>> understand the second half of that sentence.
>>>>
>>>> Mark: 5-4-04: This goes back to which hat you are wearing, either your
>>>> mystical or conceptual hat. The conceptual is inside the mystical, and
> if
>>>
>>>
>> you mix
>>
>>>> them up you discover you cannot place the One inside the other.
>>>> But don't ask me to explain the One because nobody can.
>>>> The question i find interesting is how we move forward from this point?
>>>
>>>
>> These
>>
>>>> discussions rather become caught up chasing a tail that will always be
> one
>>>> step ahead of the chace.
>>>>
>>>> When dmb asks if the MoQ helps with the apparent distinction between
> the
>>>> mystic and metaphysics, i would agree the answer is yes. This is
> because
>>>
>>>
>> DQ is not
>>
>>>> conceptualised in the MoQ.
>>>>
>>>> Rick:
>>>> It sounds as though he's conceding that Pirsig uses the terms
>>>
>>>
>> inconsistently
>>
>>>> but that it's okay as long as one doesn't try and read it all together.
>>>>
>>>> Mark: 5-4-04: Or, one may wish to say, that in the conceptual realm of
>>>> understanding, we are at an appropriately sophisticated level of
>>>
>>>
>> perception as to
>>
>>> choose not to extend concepts to the mystical realm of experience?
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>> Mark
>>
>>
>
>
>
> 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 : Thu Apr 08 2004 - 23:05:03 BST