by mill.venus.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12240
for <moq_focus@moq.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 09:55:29 +0100 (BST)
From: skutvik@online.no
Received: from oemcomputer (ti32a22-0118.dialup.online.no [130.67.165.118])
by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25196
for <moq_focus@moq.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 10:55:51 +0200 (MET DST)
To: moq_focus@moq.org
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 10:55:05 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: MF Mind and Quality.
Message-ID: <3B711A89.30366.C072F3@localhost>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Andrew, 3WD and Foci.
Andrew wrote:
> OK, first things first. It seems like the Quality that "is not of
> mind" is Dynamic Quality.
No value - be it dynamic or static - is "of mind" and herein lies the
innermost kernel of the Quality Metaphysics. Mind is the
subjective side of SOM and as QM replaces it, mind is gone to the
same place as the paradoxes of Greek physics. The QM does not
SOLVE the mind/matter riddle, rather shows that it is result of
wrong premises.
> Pirsig later goes on to say that static intellectual
> patterns are a form of Quality. IMO, the fact that they're a "form"
of
> Quality, in other words substantial, they're not directly connected
to
> the big Q that we're trying to keep undefined. That seems to
make
> sense. Mind is like any other static pattern - it's detritus left
> behind by the Quality event. The brain (my brain, right now), gets
a
> bit haughty at that thought, that intellectual statements and
actions
> (thought) are Quality leftovers, but there it is.
Well, here it is: The usual "static intellectual level" equalized with
mind (of SOM); A mental realm where ideas reside - even the QM
itself. No, this can't be it. If the social level preceded the
intellectual there was an enormous long time when (as said in
ZAMM) ... there existed civilizations in an advanced state of
development....etc. These people used language and made up
theories about their existence, but - nota bene - their theorizing
was not "objective". No caveman shouted to the tribe shaman:
"Your story is subjective nonsense, I have performed an objective
test ...etc"! I continue forwarding the view that Intellect is the S/O
division itself.
> With ZMM and LILA to work with, it seems more that Quality and
its
> forms are well defined, but "mind" is not. Mind is one of those
> objects we can't point to, can't strap a beginning or end to, and
> can't control very well even in direct action.
OK Andrew, this is worth dwelling on. Phaedrus of ZAMM (not the
narrator) starts as a SOMmist, this fact must be realized. His first
move is to reject the "objective horn". Everyone will know that the
empiricists' proof that everything is in the mind is waterproof and
need no further comment. After that he faced the "subjective horn"
and here the value idea emerges for the first time: Why is "just
what you like" so derogatory? He removed the "just" and got that
quality is what you like. A truism. This part is long but ends with .
...."Then: he rejected the right horn. Quality is not subjective, he
said. It does not reside merely in the mind. And finally: P.
following a path that to his knowledge had never been taken
before ....etc. See, Pirsig here says ..it does not merely reside in
the mind...as if he takes MIND for granted!!! And here your
comparing mind with DQ is justified - sort of.
Consequently the QM can be said to be a "Metaphysics of Mind",
but this statement without reservations wrecks havoc to a
Westerner steeped in SOM (have a peek at Alan Watts' agonizing
struggle to explain the two views of "mind" in his "Way of Zen". A
Pirsig hunter (Struan Hellier) said - when I once followed this
reasoning - that I had admitted that the QM was all subjectivity.
"Mind" is forever associated with THE SUBJECTIVE.
..snip
> This brings up another point which I hope we can make a more
> thorough study of in a future month. If static intellectual
> patters, the "of mind" stuff, aren't in Quality, are any of the static
> patterns of Quality actually "of Quality"
You see this catch yourself. Good
...................................................................................
3WD quotes ZAMM:
> First I think it would be useful to have a recap of the issue in
> Pirsig's Zen words. "...the English facility presented him with a
> reasonable question, "Does this undefined 'quality' of yours exist
> in the things we observe" they asked. " Or is it subjective,
> existing only in the observer?".... [And then after exploring ways
> to attack the question he ask] How could he say whether quality
was
> mind or matter when there was no logical clarity as to what was
mind
> and what was matter in the first place? And so: he rejected the
left
> horn. Quality is not objective, he said. It doesn't reside in the
> material world. Then: he rejected the right horn. Quality is not
> subjective, he said. It doesn't reside merely in the mind. And
> finally, Phaedrus ... went straight between the horns of the
> subjectivity objectivity dilemma and said that Quality is neither a
> part of mind nor is it a part of matter. It is a third entity which
> is independent of the two.
Right!
> " [Then a few pages later] Quality is not a thing. It is an event.
> [a few sentences more then] This means that Quality is not just
the
> result of the collision between the subject and the object. The
very
> existence of subject and object is deduced from the Quality
event.
> The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and the objects,
> which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the
Quality!
> [next paragraph] "The sun of quality," he wrote, " does not revolve
> around the subjects and objective of our existence. It does not
just
> passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any
way.
> It has created them. They are subordinate to it."
Right again.
> [Which is the point
> that Mangus was trying to make to Jonathan last month but
>which they couldn't come to an understanding on.] 3WD
I remember Magnus saying that a Quality Event (QE) takes place
any moment we experience, but this I find ruinous to the QM (of
LILA). It reintroduces the "observer/world" impossibility. "It HAS
created them" the text says - past tense - It's completed, no need
to postulate any continuous mystic creation. Even worse is
Jonathan's (and your own? No offense old debater) imposing a
subject-object split throughout the static edifice which makes the
QM a complicated SOM.
Thanks for reading this.
Bo
Sender: owner-moq_focus@venus.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: moq_focus@moq.org
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:32 BST