Pardon me (Roger) for jumping in, but Keith's two entries this month have
been awesome. I completely agree with his interpretation of the Pirsig quote
and his reference to DQ as a 'placeholder'. To be honest, I am astounded
that it is not obvious to everyone familiar with Lila. The only explanation
to me is that Keith, Kevin and I see the world in a totally different way
than John, Ken and to some extent David B. Many truths to us all, I am not
saying one is the real truth, but I cannot understand the other side. Diana
seems to indicate a similar concern with people disregarding 75 % of the MOQ,
but I don't know if she is referring to the mystic/intellectual side or the
rational side, or all of us. Please let us know Diana......
I am sure Keith is working on a response, but I must add my input to Ken's
post.
Ken wrote:
You seem to be saying that the universe would not exist without
sentience. That our existence was required before the universe could have
any material qualities. Alternatively, it could be that you are saying that
the universe existed but could have no reality for us without the
intervention of Dynamic Quality. If the second is the case then we are both
arguing for the existence of Quality from the beginning.
Roger:
The world is pure experience. Quality is experience. Pirsig says this more
times than I can count. And when Pirsig states that " experience is pure
quality which gives rise to the creation of intellectual patterns which in
turn produce a division between subjects and objects" he is clearly stating
that static patterns such as you, me and the universe are intellectual
constructs. DQ is experience is all. Our existence is required for the
universe only in the context that a coin needs two sides or black absolutely
requires white to exist. DQ does not "intervene", it is all. There is no
beginning, no end, no self, no time, no universe except as static
abstractions of pure DQ/EXPERIENCE/QUALITY. Subjects and objects are
byproducts of sentience. DQ isn't.
Ken Continued:
My concern with the MoQ is that it be consistent from beginning to end.
To that end I regard the concept of Quality as being absolutely necessary
for the evolution of the universe right from the start.
Roger:
Ken, the universe is an abstraction along with you. You and I are both
"collections of patterns". Patterns of what? Patterns derived from DQ.
Pirsig makes this clear. I believe rejection of this essence of the MOQ
leads the "rationals" to an SOM version of the MOQ that makes no sense.
Ken also wrote:
Keith says that the universe only exists in the NOW, the present instant.
If dynamic Quality is the result of all of our past experiences plus the
totality of all influences operating on us at any given instant then our
past experience of the universe, plus any immediate new experiences,
operating thru DQ would cause the universe to exist for us continuously
because the universe would be continuously under the ken of our DQ.
Roger:
Although I agree with the gist of Keith's argument, I would add that "now" is
an intellectual extraction too. Experience is timeless. And we don't have
experiences...you can't have DQ contained in a subject....DQ creates the
object, the subject, and speciifically YOU. On the other hand, I agree with
you Ken that You and I are the patterns derived from the totality of
experience.
Ken Continued:
t seems obvious to me that the majority, if not all, of the posts on the
squad view the operation of Quality from the human standpoint. In my
opinion this is not in accordance with Pirsig's views. I think Quality must
be applied to the totality of the universe, including us, if it is to have
any validity. If we restrict ourselves to applying Dynamic Qulaity solely
to the human race then we are, at times, going to find ourselves in
opposition to the Qulaity of the universe. If we place ourselves in this
position then we will continue to have the same difficulties that the
philosophers of the past have experienced and we will get no completely
satisfactory answers.
In my mind I view Quality as the Quality of the universe, and Dynamic
Quality as the DQ of humanity.
Roger:
Only if you assume that experience requires sentience. I think John is or
was in this camp too. David B and I and others have pointed out that this is
not correct.
Am I making any sense? If you agree, tell me . If you disagree show me what
you disagree with. If you find me confusing, challenge me to clarify. And if
you find me wrong, please help to correct me. Let's take up Diana's challenge
though and openly confront each other.
All is good
Roger
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:44 GMT