Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Fri, 9 Jan 1998 17:25:40 +0100
9 January 1998 Diana wrote:
> Samuel, James and the LS
>
> Samuel Palmer wrote:
>
> > With respect to the questions about everything/nothing, this seems
> > to be troublesome mostly because of the limitations of our language.
>
> Yes that's absolutely right. As I see it there are two ways round this
> problem. One is to take the Zen path of refusing to define anything,
> avoiding the written word and basing everything on direct experience.
> The other is to accept that words are limited but try and do the best we
> can with them because they're all we've got.
>
> > The MoQ suggests that the universe itself is founded on value.
> > Perhaps the issue can be resolved algebraicly, assuming that the
> > contents of our universe contain equal quantities of negative and
> > positive values, then the sum of all parts would equal zero. In that
> > sense, it is perfectly logical to suggest than when everything is added
> > up, you'll get nothing.
>
> Even if the MoQ could be represented algebraically that would leave us
> facing the problem that quantum physics currently faces - it's perfectly
> understandable mathematically but is a quagmire philosophically. One of
> the aims of the MoQ is to make sense of the paradoxes presented by
> quantum physics. If the MoQ is expressed algebraically rather than in in
> everyday language then we're not really solving anything - we're just
> restating the problem.
>
> James wrote:
> > Has anyone suggested yet that what is needed is an entirely new language? That is,
> > a language will all of the flexibility of a natural language, but none of its
> > philosophical assumptions (replacing them with MoQ style constructs) ?
>
> I'd be intrigued to know how you would go about this, but I'm dubious
> about how useful it would be. You would inevitably end up having to
> translate the MoQ language into everyday language in order to explain it
> to people.
>
> In the Subjects, objects, data and values paper, Pirsig quotes
> Heisenberg saying
>
> "On cannot go entirely away from the old words because one has to talk
> about something. So I could realize that I could not avoid using these
> weak terms which we always have used for many years in order to describe
> what I see. So I saw that in order to describe phenomena one needs a
> language. The terms don't get hold of the phenomena, but still, to some
> extent they do."
>
> It's perfectly true that "Quality is reality" is not a precisely defined
> statement. But then again it's not totally devoid of meaning either. It
> does point the reader in the direction of what we are talking about, it
> contains a certain amount of insight.
>
> Language and definitions are a big problem in the MoQ and that's why we
> need a principle such as Platt's Awareness Principle, which may even
> deserve to be the very first principle because everything that follows
> is affected by it:
>
> > 2. The Awareness Principle. The essence of quality is known to us as
> > awareness without content-pure, unpatterned experience. As such, it's
> > impossible to describe. Whenever we try, we end up describing what we are
> > aware of, not awareness itself.
>
> I would say it's impossible to define, not describe. Descriptions of
> Quality are possible to a certain extent. A description is a far less
> rigorous statement than a definition. Description and explanation is
> what we should be aiming for in the principles.
>
> Diana
Diana, Samuel, James
IMHO the MOQ has liberated us from despair over such disturbing
concepts as nothingness, being, everything etc. According to it
language, concepts, ideas, including the above, are relevant only at
the Intellectual level. On that level they are as real as real comes
and don't contradict direct experience (Dynamic Quality) any more
than other stable levels' values They are static all right, but
subject to change. For example does our time's "nothingness" bear no
resemblance to the "vacuum" of medieval age. I agree with Diana - and
Heisenberg - that language will always seem inadequate, but I feel
that the MOQ explains why.
May I add that the Shakespearian nonbeing (To be or not to be...)
that has terrorized Western mind for so long is also nullified by the
MOQ. Language that has hypnotized us for so long into believing that
"death" is a state (that it is possible to BE dead), is relegated to
one value plane. The highest admittedly, but none the less subject
to change and/or expansion. Even, as in our most ambitious endeavour,
if we regard the Intellectual level as subject/object-thinking itself
(Reason), it may be transcended by a new level.
Bo
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST