From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 19 2004 - 03:26:18 BST
Hello everyone
>From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD the metaphysics of freedom
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:05:50 EDT
>
>
>Mark 18c-7-04: Imagine EH standing holding his bow waiting for the shot?
>Add
>to this the rest of the Universe - all of it. Now apply DQ-sq division. At
>what points in this Universe is DQ acting? At those points where balance is
>'just
>so.'
Hi Mark
From the Copleston annotations on Anthony McWatt's website:
The MOQ takes takes the Oriental line, that it [completely harmonious and
all-inclusive experience] is a falling away of static patterns achievable by
meditation or other disciplines. The Buddha also does not tell us precisely
in what this transformation consists. He simply says “See for yourself.”
(Robert Pirsig)
That's what I mean when I say experience comes first. Imagining, standing,
holding, applying, pointing, all that, considered in the MOQ as static
patterns of value, comes later. That's what the Buddha meant. That is what
the master is attempting to impart to his student, as I see it now.
>There may be many of them, and in varying degrees. But the best ones, as
>far
>as the MOQ understands, involve the most recently evolved patterns: Humans.
>How more free can a Human be?
Where did this come from? The only human I know who's free is the homeless
fellow who sleeps under the stairs at the nieghborhood laundrymat. Freedom
carries a heavy price.
>EH insulted the master by relying on habit. In, 'A river runs through it'
>the
>narrator says a fly fisher must be worthy to catch a fish. If a fly fisher
>fishes by habit, he/she is not paying respect to the art. It does not
>matter
>what the art is - all art is about DQ.
So we could say student Herrigal was cheating and insulted the master. But
he certainly meant no insult and he didn't intend to cheat. In fact,
remember Herrigal anticipated how the master would be most pleased with his
progress. Rather it seems there is a fundamental difference in how we of the
West learn a skill compared to Eastern traditions.
I happened to read that Bobby Fischer was arrested in Japan just a few days
ago. He reminds me of the story of William James Sidis who RMP mentions in
LILA. Normally we in the West think someone successful who reaches the
pinacle of their chosen profession but that term hardly applies in Fischer's
case. He comes across as mentally unbalanced at best. Yet there is little
doubt that if he had chosen to keep playing chess he could have beaten
anyone in the world.
Is it worth our while to ask ourself just how did the master learn the skill
that he is now attempting to impart to student Herrigal? He didn't learn by
practicing, otherwise he WOULD have been pleased with student Herrigal's
progress. How about Bobby Fischer? How did he learn to play so well that he
could beat anyone? There's no school that teaches that.
> >help it
> >Dan, that's the way i think these days.
>
>Dan:
>That's ok. This too shall pass. Remember: "If he does really stick to
>symbols that have no reference to the experienced world, the logician is
>not
\>going to say anything meaningful." (Robert Pirsig, Copleston annotations)
>
>Mark 18c-7-04: I don't understand what you mean by, "That's ok. This too
>shall pass."
Just what it means. All thinking is temporal.
>
>Dan:
>The
>MOQ starts with experience. The meaningful act of experience isn't divided
>up into a bunch of sq and a bunch of sq, that all happens later. Aren't you
>just substituting sq/sq for subject and object, by the way?
>
>Mark 18c-7-04: I'm getting that sinking feeling one gets when one begins to
>realise that one is talking to oneself Dan. Coherence takes into account
>all sq
>patterns in the MOQ, just as the MOQ describes all sq patterns and adds DQ
>to
>the whole show.
Yes so you're talking to yourself, but what has that to do with describing
experience in meaningful terms?
>
>Dan:
>Sure reads that
>way to me.
>
>Mark 18c-7-04: Maybe you want it to read that way Dan?
>
Entirely possible. I thought you'd like to know how you're coming across. No
insult meant.
>Dan:
>You might want to look into getting that fixed before it gets
>worse. There is no "I" hitting a "golf ball." There is just the act, the
>experience. Afterwards I intellectually divide the act up into "me" as
>static quality and the golf ball as static quality.
>
>Mark 18c-7-04: In order to communicate with you i have to use our common
>language. This language is as it is. However, i rather hoped you would
>understand
>the underlying philosophy behind the language is MOQ driven.
>Does Lila not use the same language you and i are using now Dan?
>Hypothetical example: Mark uses the word, 'material.' Mark understands
>material as, 'Inorganic patterns of sq.' Dan clobbers Mark for SOM speak
>and
>dividing experience into subjects and (material) objects.
Actually I believe Mark might have started the SOM clobbering, your honor.
Just letting him know how it feels by poking back with a little fun. Perhaps
now that all the alpha-male SOM intellectual arm wrestling is out of the way
we can embark on a more rewarding dialogue. Or perhaps not, as the case may
be.
>
>Dan:
>Thank you for your comments,
>
>Dan
>
>Mark 18c-7-04: And thank you for your comments also.
You're welcome. Thank you too,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 : Mon Jul 19 2004 - 03:30:25 BST