Marco, Andrea, all,
I'm sorry for confusing things by posting twice on the same thread, but this
one's mostly addressed to Marco's comments, mostly as an invitation to
expand on some suggsetive remarks that I'm not sure I've understood.
MARCO WROTE TO ANDREA:
> But there's another important point to consider: "language", logic,
> science, metaphysics are part of the same reality they want to grasp....
> so when they try to get closer to reality, they evolve, and the result
> is a reality modification. My point about the language/reality mismatch
> is that it's a false problem, as language is primarily a real entity
> itself. According to the MOQ, the *best* metaphysical division is
> static/dynamic. To say that reality is static, or that it is dynamic,
> it's the same mistake of considering one only aspect.
ELEPHANT:
Do excuse me for butting in and adding my two-penny-worth here. Firstly it
seems to me that one disagreement you've identified concerns words only. No
one is saying that the static entities are unreal, just that, real as they
are, they are not real in quite the way that the dynamic reality is real.
Well this is true, isn't it? Secondly I agree that langauge can sometimes
form part of the reality we want to grasp, not just that with which we grasp
it. But I'm not yet sure where you are going with this fact. Do please
expand.
MARCO:
> Language has a double nature: it is statically, and interacts
> dynamically. Just like every *real* entity, it interacts with reality
> (dynamically, in the Q event) and then translates the experience
> according to static patterns. The result are new real entities (ideas,
> concepts and so on....). Language is not purely static: actually, it
> modifies reality and it evolves at the same time. In this, I don't see
> huge differences between language and biologic living beings. At every
> level of experience, the process is always to evolve towards
> excellence.
ELEPHANT:
The fact that something evolves does nothing to make it dynamic as opposed
to static (this seems to be a general confusion, alteast, *I* think it is a
confusion). Evolving entities are ones that change over time. But change
is antithetical to the dynamic, because the dynamic is just that which does
not have a static identity for long enough for there to be any 'that' which
changes. Therefore if evolving entities change, this must be because they
count as static at any given time, and a static series of static identities
looked at over time. Just as there is a static concept that is meant by
'seagull' right now, even though we know that seagulls are evolving.
MARCO:
> Any reality/language division is a door opened to the subject/object
> division.
ELEPHANT:
Why?
ANDREA:
>> The gap between our
>> (linguistic/rational/...) representation of reality and reality itself
> can only
>> be bridged by "intuition", meditation, and other more or less mystical
> tools
>> that, in the first place, suppress our rationalizing, linguistic,
> logical mind
>> (together with the notion of "self", newtonian space/time, and other
> accessories
>> of rationality itself - see also Schopenhauer).
MARCO:
> YES! There are so many examples of the limits of the logical / rational
> method!
>
> IMO the mystic bridge is mystic only in a reality/language (SOMish)
> division. From a SOMish viewpoint, subject is separated from object,
> language is separated from reality, mind is separated from matter, so
> when the Quality event happens (the moment when subject and object are
> the same) the limited language uses the "mystic" notation to express
> the nature of the moment. But from a MOQish viewpoint, I'd say that we
> don't need any "mystic" notation.
ELEPHANT:
I'd like to be told why the separation of language from the dynamically real
is a SOMist point of view, given that neither language nor the dynamically
real is a subject or an object. Or perhaps you are saying that in such a
distinction that is precisely how we are treating language and the
dynamically real? Hm. I'll need to think about that. Can you help me out
a bit on this one Marco - expand on it, and put your argument before me so
that I don't make some mistake?
ANDREA:
>> What consequences stem from the discrete vs. continuous issue in
> everyday life?
>> Here is a situation that I think most of us experienced:
> [....]
> long snip
> [....]
>
>> While these dynamics are trivial and almost anyone could agree that
> they're
>> common, just a few people realize that their source is in the gap
> between
>> language and reality.
MARCO:
> Well, your example seems to match the example of the song in Lila. The
> first time you hear it (QE), you are enthusiastic, then enthusiasm
> fades away. You will love forever the song, but as something pertaining
> to your past; you probably will not feel the urge to listen to the song
> like in the first days.
>
> This process is well described by the dynamic/static division. IMO
> better than any language/reality gap.
ELEPHANT:
Well it can be *better*, but only if it is shown to be *different*. I think
when Pirsig is talking about the static he talking about the discrete and
conceptualised (the linguistic) and that talking about the dynamic he is
talking about the continuous and preconceptual (the prelinguistic).
ANDREA:
>> Also, I think that any means that help us leave language behind to see
> "what is
>> Good", here and now, for Me, should be widely taught, because
> unhappiness is
>> never caused by the world around you, only by your opinion about the
> world
>> itself.
>>
MARCO:
> Well, IMO unhappiness can be caused by a bad fitting in the world around
> you. For example, I would like to discuss of metaphysics all time, but
> of course I can't. I must attend to my job and be also part of the
> giant. And I've a family. And I must preserve my biological life. All
> these "musts" can be a source of happiness, or a source of unhappiness.
> The MOQ helps me a lot to understand that my intellectual self is only a
> part of me, and it lies upon a social, a biological and an inorganic
> self. If I want to reach the peace of mind, I must find a good balance
> of my four levels, and a similar fitting of my four levels of experience
> into the respective four levels of the world around me. A good way is
> to understand that I'm part of this world. To surpass any division
> between me and the other.
>
ELEPHANT:
A bad fitting in the world.... That seems to be a perfect description of
unhappiness. But please, whatsoever be of good report, think on these
things.
Puzzled Elephant
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:02 BST