glove (glove@indianvalley.com)
Thu, 2 Jul 1998 06:59:23 +0100
hello all
michael darling wrote:
>Glove wrote:
>
>> * 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.
>
>michael wrote:
>Since you and universe are one and the same, and since you admittedly
>are trying to "see more clearly" and make your beliefs "more clear" to
>others, it follows that you are universe trying to "change for the
>better."
my comment:
we can bandy words about in an attempt to confuse the issues, but that
is all that is being said here as far as i can see. the betterment of my
seeing more clearly is a relationally subjective/objective phrase that
betters nothing.
michael wrote;
>
>May I also point out that your assertion that "all of universe is in a
>constant state of flux" contradicts itself.
my comment:
of course my statement contradicts itself. i saw that as soon as i wrote
it but at the same time there is no other way to adequately express the
idea i was attempting to express. i am sure its possible to express, but
i am unable to find the words to express it differently so that that
statement might be 'better' understood. i did try and state as much
with my qualification that went along with the statement.
michael wrote:
Those who claim "there are
>no absolutes" must make an exception for their claim or else admit to
>nonsense. Once the exception is made, the claim collapses of its own
>weight and the world of relativism is overthrown.
my comment:
everything i write is nonsense unless the reader first drops their
preconceived notions of duality, which i admit is impossible in most
cases. still, i do enjoy delving into the nonsensical chaos i find
around me in an effort to form recognizable patterns. thats all i am
doing by sharing my thoughts with others. i am not trying to make
anything 'better'. i am as incapable of doing that as anyone else.
michael wrote:
>
>Finally, you seem to dislike dualistic thinking.
my comment:
while i may object to the dualistic thinking which is prevalient around
me, that is neither here nor there. its true that i may choose to look
at the world in a alternate fashion, but i am not trying to force these
views on anyone. i am only atttempting to make sense of what i see
around me in terms that seem as harmonious with universe as possible.
this doesnt mean my viewpoint is 'better' or 'worse' than any other
viewpoint.
michael wrote:
I know of no other
>kind.
>As Bo pointed out in his response, you cannot tell an idealist unless
>you know a materialist. All things intellectual are known by their
>opposites.
>Pirsig said as much in Chapter 5 of "Lila:" "A metaphysics must be
>divisible, definable, and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics" And
>we all remember his famous "first slice of undivided experience,"
>dualism to the core. Bo has repeatedly made the point that Pirsiq's
>Intellectual Level is the dualistic subject/object level to which I
>wholeheartedly agree. It's the nature of the beast.
my comment:
we insist on dividing up the world around us in an effort to discover
what it is and what we are in relation with universe. this is the
intellect asserting itself and its feelings of superiorty over the
non-intellect. it is precisely this feeling of superiority that leads to
dualist notions of universe. try dropping your intellectual
self-importance, and then come back and tell me that anything is
ultimately knowable.
>
michael wrote:
>So despite your protestations, it appears that Bo and Diana's definition
>of the DQ/SQ split as "CHANGE FOR THE BETTER" versus PERMANENCE" still
>stands as the best (note the moral judgment) yet.
>
>Platt
my comment:
i would offer up a definition of the dq/sq split as being 'precessionary
vs chaos'. i am not offering it as a 'better' solution to 'change for
the better vs. permanence' but rather a different viewpoint. both
precession and chaos exist not because one is 'better' than the other
but because they have to exist. the only thing we are doing when we pass
moralistic judgements on anything is comparing relational experiences
with other relational experiences and deciding which is good and which
is bad.
please rethink the statement 'change for the better vs permanence' and
tell me where 'change for the worse' fits into the equation, for surely
'change for the worse' occurs as much as change for the better if
judgements of duality are to be used.
glove
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST