glove (glove@indianvalley.com)
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 19:21:21 +0100
hello all
Bo wrote:
I think the simplest way of saying it is that reality i created by the
theory - by the metaphysics, but not in the SOM-subjective sense that
Glove hints to. Rather in the sense that the various Q-levels
constitute reality. Once reality was only Matter, then it was
Matter and Life. Next step was Matter, Life and Society
and by now it consists of the four value dimensions.
my comments:
Bo, i do not think i am hinting at a SOM-subjective reality. however, i am
unable to get past the point of how i would go about knowing universe exists
with me as the observer missing from the equation. we are each in the same
boat as far as i can see. if we, each of us individual observers reading
these words, were to die together by some unfortuitous accident, how would
we know whether the lila squad still existed or not?
the lila squad is a relational experience, and thus it MUST BE experienced
in order to exist relationally. like the tree falling in the forest with no
one there...there can be no sound experienced without an experiencer. it may
well be that 'something' will occur when a tree falls in a forest with no
one around, but there is no way of knowing what that 'something' was other
than associating it in our minds with agreements priorly formed and calling
it a sound.
and the question naturally arises that since nothing else can have existence
without the observer, then is the observer omnipotent? he/she is not,
because of the relational agreements with perceived reality holding each
observer in that reality. it is the relationships with the rest of universe
that puts and keeps the observer in place, and one cannot exist without the
other. there is always hell to pay, so to speak.
life is very much like a dream and there are times when i am unsure which is
which. i am sure we all have had dreams like that, that seem just like
waking life until some telltale point comes along when we know we are
dreaming.
i feel our waking consciousness operates the same way as our dreaming self,
only we have learned to make agreements with the waking consciousness in
ways we have not with the dreaming self. we consider one real and the other
not-real but they are both one and neither is real and neither is
not-real...they are both perceptions of reality within our awareness. it is
our relational agreements that make waking life real, and the dreaming life
not-real to us.
the old zen master had lived by himself many years and gladly welcomed a
band of monks who arrived at his hut one evening while on a pilgrimage. he
built a fire and they all sat around a large stone. during the course of the
evening, he asked one of the monks if that large stone was inside his mind
or outside?
the monk pondered this question at some length, and finally answered, the
stone is inside of my mind. the old master smiled at him and said, it must
be a very heavy stone to be carrying around with you on your journey!
what the master is saying is what i am saying...it is not reality we carry
with us, but relational agreements with reality ( like MoQ). reality for us
is the web of relational agreements we have each formed thru our experiences
in life. and since we have to experience in order to form these agreements,
there is simply no way i can see to eliminate the me as the observer of
these experiences.
i would like to go to the passage in lila where pirsig states 'of the two
kinds of hostilities to metaphysics he considered the mystics' hostility
more formidable' (page 73). mystics know that reality is subjectively
relational and they can bend it by changing agreements and learning
different ways of viewing reality as the observer (like pirsigs peyote
experiments).
mystics cannot think in terms of duality. reality is the mystic and the
mystic is reality. the mystics answer is to define the self in an effort to
define reality, instead of the other way around like the logical positivists
make an attempt to do. for a mystic, there are no absolutes, for a logical
positivist, there are...yet there are limitations to both viewpoints.
pirsig went on to say his answer to the mystics was to hang out in bars,
pick up bar-flies and write metaphyics on quality. he knew he could never
define what he wanted to define (quality), no matter how close he came, yet
he had to attempt it because for him to do otherwise would be to fall into a
degeneracy of avoidance which is prevalent in many areas of the world where
fanatics thrive.
i agree with him and yet i view universe from what most people would call a
mystic viewpoint. so my answer is to blend MoQ with my own viewpoints and
perhaps see what falls off that huge pile of rumble that will be left
standing there when i am done. in other words, it seems like i may be
attempting to kill the buddha, just like pirsig seemed to be attempting to
do when he wrote his MoQ.
but i in no way support any type of SOM model whatsoever. thats why i am so
disconcerted with the idea of absolutes. i feel that anytime we begin
assigning absolutes, we are dealing with SOM. and pirsig seems to be doing
that by assigning four levels of function within his MoQ...inorganic,
biological, sociological and intellectual, and not allowing any freely
overlapping rippling within them.
glove
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST