clark (clark@netsites.net)
Mon, 31 Aug 1998 00:54:04 +0100
----------
> From: clark <clark@netsites.net>
> To: Lila Squad <lilasqd@hkg.com>
> Subject: LS: 4 levels of being vs. DQ
> Date: Saturday, August 29, 1998 12:21 PM
>
> Donny and LS,
>
> Donny wrote:
> But what *really* exists is what
> we're doing right here, right now.
>
> Clark wrote:
>
> Donny, Why didn't you tell me about this before? Does this mean that
when
> I gas up my car at a self service pump I don't have to pay for it because
> the filling action no longer exists?
> Can I borrow money from a friend and claim that the transaction no
longer
> exists so I don't owe him anything.
> Wish I had known about this earlier. I forgot, there is no earlier.
>
> Donny wrote:
> This rock doesn't exist "out there" in the world. It exists -- it
> *really* exists as an abstraction, a token passed around in our
> conversation. The InOrgPoVs are *only* abstractions -- schema, part of
> the correct picture of the world (CPOW).
>
> Clark wrote:
> With Dr Johnson in mind, if I stub my abstracted toe on the imaginary
> rock then I have to cut the toe our of my imaginary shoe so that I can
walk
> until my imaginary toenail comes off and a new one replaces it.
>
> Donny wrote:
> This schema is very practical. It has one big problem. It
> endorses the idea of the objective, "thing-itself" reality "out there"
> somewhere.
> Like: It explains (nicely so!) the existence of a rock as a set of
> InorgPoVs... but this picture leaves something out: US!! Us -- the
> subject, imaginatively rojecting this object of the world. S and O arise
> together out of the Quality Event
>
> Clark wrote:
> Donny, US was not around when that rock was formed. You are projecting
> the Quality idea from the standpoint of humanity. Humanity is an eye
blink
> in the history of the universe. According to my interpretation, to say
that
> the universe is only a projection of the imagination of humanity is to
> misunderstand the MoQ.
> There is much talk on the squad about DQ being mystical and
indefinable.
> I think this is an incorrect view of Quality.
> In my view Quality is the range of possibilities that were irrevocably
> established in the first fraction of a second at the beginning of the
> universe. (leaving aside our puny efforts that have added a few more
> elements to the range of possibilities).
> From this beginning we can construct a scenario that will logically
> account for all of the physical happenings up to the present. We can even
> make this scenario non-deterministic due to the increasing complexity of
> the range of possibilities available to the discrimination of the Dynamic
> Quality event. Dynamic Quality makes the pre-sentient universe and our
> human situation non-deterministic. All of these possibilities came about
> without the aid of Kant, or even the Greeks (perish the thought), or
maybe
> even Donny.
> When humanity arose and sentience burst upon the scene a new phase of
> Quality also came into being. Alongside the non-sentient operation of
> Quality came sentient Quality and Donny. Along with the range of
> possibilities presented to Dynamic Quality by the non-sentient universe,
> there appeared another range of possibilities that were generated by
human
> sentience. Because of this the operation of Dynamic Quality changed
> qualitatively. Each individual human represented a distinct and separate
> field of awareness that was available to each individuals personal state
of
> Dynamic Quality. Each individuals four static patterns of value diverged
> and became different for each individual. I think this was the reason
that
> Pirsig divided the four levels into subject and object categories. He did
> not say it but I think he saw that unless he somehow accounted for
> sentience that his argument would fall apart. This division resulted in
his
> "Many Truths" idea in which he recognized that one could not apply
> non-sentient Quality to humanity without contradiction.
> In a perfect universe in which every human fully understands his
position
> in the universe there should be no contradiction between non-sentient and
> sentient Quality. The trouble is that we do not have enough knowledge to
> recognize what actually is Quality in all cases.
> What would you do if you were given the power to make the Quality
> selections for the entire human race as well as the physical universe?
> Would you always know what the best choices were?
> The "Many Truths" idea allows a path for the growth of understanding of
> humanity as it struggles along toward complete understanding of our real
> situation in the evolution of the universe. In the meantime everybody is
> just acting in accordance with their current understanding. Wouldn't it
be
> nice if we had six or seven billion members of the Lila Squad. Ken
>
>
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:39 CEST