Glove (glove@indianvalley.com)
Wed, 1 Jul 1998 06:17:45 +0100
Platt wrote:
Glove's objection to the universe striving to become better is
ultimately self-contradictory because he asserts that his intellectual
pattern of "rippling evolution" is better than the Pirsigian and
Darwinian intellectual patterns. Surely intellectual patterns are to be
included as part of the universe. No matter how hard the intellect tries
to be "objective," there's no escape from morality.
my comment:
i am not proposing a 'better' solution to either darwinian or pirsigian
evolution at all, even though if one continues to think in s/o dualistic
terms, i can certainly see where it would come off as such in the
'rippling evolution' post i wrote. i attempted to make that clear in my
post but i also realize its very hard to see unless the reader first
drops the dualitistic thinking associated with betterment.
i am proposing a 'different' solution which is no more 'right' than
darwins theory of evolution or pirsigs MOQ and i would be grossly
overestimating myself if i thought anything i said was 'better' than
either of the two authors mentioned. all my writings can be taken for
what they are...subjective insights into reality that i wish to share
with others in an attempt to perhaps see more clearly into the chaotic
patterns i find all around me.
i am not being objective at all, but rather subjective, which i thought
came across very clearly in my post. i will restate it... morality is as
individualistic as quality. morality is a truly subjective subject, if i
might be so bold as to pun it like that.
as you all might guess, i also disagree with the phrase 'change for the
better vs permanence' as it is a dualistic phrase indicating that there
are indeed objects of permanence in universe* when i feel that this is
never the case. i have already said enough about betterment.
all of universe is in a constant state of flux (please excuse my
inappropriate use of constant...no other way arises for me to express
the thought) which seems to continually regenerate into loops which
could be mistaken for circles if it were not for the fact no two points
can occupy a space simultaneously in universe, and so the 'circle'
overlaps itself.
is it possible for pirsigs model of
inorganic-biological-societal-intellectual to come full loop back to
the inorganic? can you see how the diagram works out if it is placed in
a loop instead of a vertical sequence? now we can see that the
intellect is
influencing the inorganic and the loop begins again. this doesnt make
the diagram 'better' but it causes it to differ in how we view it.
i want to make it clear that even though i continue to use words that
are inappropriate and slip back into judgements of better and worse, at
the heart of my meanderings, in the sharing of my insights, i do not
consider anything 'better' than any other thing. all perceptions are
true perceptions no matter who happens to be perceiving them, and all
perceptions are false perceptions at the same time. i enjoy reading and
getting imput from each and every post i receive from the lila squad and
the only reason i happen to pick a particular phrase to respond to is
certain thoughts arise when i read the posts and they pull me to them or
i pull them to me, i havent decided which, or if it really matters
which.
if there were an absolute in universe, surely it would have reared its
beautifully ugly head by now. therefore, as i see it, the only absolute
that lies ahead for any of us is death. that seems as absolute as it
gets.
glove
* for any who wonder at my use of universe without the 'the' (i've been
waiting for that question and have grown impatient it seems), it is
because i do not consider myself separate from universe. we are one and
the same and to refer to me as 'the me' sounds rather ridiculous if one
intellectualizes about such nonsense. so i dropped the 'the' whenever i
refer to universe. it seems like such a small concession to make and yet
it makes all the difference in how i view reality...another example of
precessionary universe
at work i might add.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST