Hi All
Reading through many of the posts over the last few days caused me
to have an interesting thought regarding reality, DQ etc.
What popped into my mind was Zeno's tale of Achilles and the
Tortoise. Given a head start Achilles can never quite catch up with
the Tortoise because whenever Achilles arrives at the place where
the Tortoise was, it's not there anymore.
This is the same as with Intellect(Achilles) and DQ or the Quality
Event (tortoise). Whenever we become aware of the event it's gone -
our Intellectual experience of DQ seems to be always of a past
event. But, from this, another interestng thought occurs - the moment
of realization is also a Quality Event and this is also the NOW.
So from this it would seem that there exists at least 2 NOW
moments. The Quality Event which causes and the Quality Event
which is caused. So which is 'real' and which is not. Answer - they
both are!
To call one real and the other unreal is not only incorrect but a non-
sense.
Both the Now and Reality are contextual as they only make sense
within a particular context. The Now/Reality of the Intellect is just as
'real' as the Now/Reality of any other Quality Event. This goes for
Inorganic reality, Biological Reality and Social Reality. Each of these
realities occurs in a different context and as such constitutes a
different experienced reality. What it is that does the experiencing is
also contextual. This, I believe, is the key to the passage from Pirsig
to Ant:
> "In the MOQ, experience is pure Quality which gives rise to the
> creation of intellectual patterns which in turn produce a division
> between subjects and objects. Among these patterns is the
> intellectual pattern that says 'there is an external world of things
> out there which are independent of intellectual patterns'. That is
> one of the highest quality intellectual patterns there is. And in this
> highest quality intellectual pattern, external objects appear
> historically before intellectual patterns... But this highest quality
> intellectual pattern itself comes before the external world, not after,
> as is commonly presumed by the materialist." (Pirsig in letter to
> Anthony McWatt)
Context makes sense of the above, not a recourse to some
absolutist reality or non-reality. Past, present and future are equally
real because they are experienced Intellectually NOW. Our
memories of 'past' events and our projections into the 'future' are all
part of a contextual Intellectual NOW. If past events and experiences
had been different then this would have given rise, via the path of
Quality Events to a different now.
External, material reality is only external in the context of that
material reality - but nonetheless its Quality Events are every bit as
'real' as the Quality Events we each 'personally' experience. Whether
we are or are not aware of a meteor hitting the other side of the moon
does not detract from the occurrence of that particular Quality Event.
Its 'reality' should not need to be in question.
I agree with Keith that the division [of 'reality'] is arbitrary although
again this is also contextual, but I don't agree that it follows from
there that 'Reality' is fundamentally mystic. It's not fundamentally
_anything_ because it is _everything_ and to state that something is
fundamentally X is to do no more than put an intellectual label on it -
and worse than that to put an absolute label on it. If those Quality
Events which are 'in the past' and which we experience through our
own moments of QE/Experience/Revelation/Realization are labelled
'Mystic' then what does this say about reality? As far as I can see, to
label 'reality' as anything but a contextual interpretation or experience
denies the idea of many truths and attempts to confine the dynamic
within a static prison. Mystic and Rational are irrelevant labels. They
just cart along a lot of unnecessary baggage.
A world exists, it is created as it is experienced. It is only the
context within which it is experienced that causes it to appear
different and it is only the context that is relevant to the experience.
Having said all that, where does this lead us. Does this mean that
atoms and suns, genes, viruses and bacteria, cells and bodies,
governments and universities, people and animals and trees don't
exist? If you're careless enough to sit on the hot stove is the pain
real? Damn right it is! No amount of 'mystic' or 'rational'
interpretations of reality and postulating that there is no real reality -
only our interpretation - alters the fact that you're airborne within
milliseconds. The MOQ provides a metaphysical context within
which to understand our experiences and explain how our
experiences relate to the what goes on 'around' us. The MOQ won't
get a rocket to the Moon, find a cure for AIDS, stop wars, pay the
rent or put a meal on the table - unless your name happens to be
Pirsig. It might provide an explanation as to a best approach to these
things. It is also here that I think that Pirsig has scored when he
posits that all activities, experiences etc. are moral events. One of
the things that the MOQ does (or could do) is to provide a possible
means to bridge the Fact/Value problem - how to get 'ought' from 'is'
without ridiculously convoluted explanations. If all activities are moral
activities then all statements are moral statements, which means
that there is no logical or semantic impediment to a valid moral
system of thought and ethical dilemmas - such as the Naturalistic
Fallacy - can be finally buried. The only problem that exists now is
to show that the MOQ _does_ provide this framework and that it is
valid.
Dead easy - Eh?
Horse
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:44 GMT