Hi Marco (and all)
ANDREA (previously):
> I use "Quality" meaning DQ, not static quality. "Perceiving Quality" means
the immediate experience of value:
> but I would like to know if you believe this:
> SQ) "Perceiving" Quality really means perceiving static quality. One
cannot directly experience DQ. DQ has to do with >an evolution in the way we
perceive sq, or what we perceive as sq, not something that we directly
"see". Or a >perception of DQ is a dramatic event such as "enlightment" and
occurs sporadically, sometimes (usually) never
>occurs at all in one's life.
Marco:
>Here I find immediately a difference. Quality means Reality. As Quality is
an event, Reality is an ever
>present event. What we experience is reality. Reality manifests to us
primarily as perception. Senses are our first tool... >but when senses are
involved, the Quality event is already in the past. Later will come the
social and intellectual selves >... later. What is that Reality we
experienced? Static Quality? Dynamic Quality?..... IMO, simply Quality. In
Lila, ch. 9, >RMP writes:
>"One can imagine how an infant [...] at birth acquires more complex
[...][awareness] of light and warmth and hunger. [...] >Form the baby's
point of view, something, he knows not what, compels attention. This
generalized "something" ,
>Whitehead's "dim apprehension", is Dynamic Quality. [...] But it is not
until the baby is several months old that he will >begin to really
understand enough about that enormously complex correlation of sensations
and
>boundaries and desires called an *object* [...] a complex pattern of static
values *derived* from primary experience".
>Well, it seems that the experience of DQ is not matter of enlightenment,
>as it is common for every baby. In few words, the same *object* I reach
>for, could be a static experience for me and a dynamic experience for
>you... or vice versa.
Just a pedantic note by-and-by: an "object" is already in the sq realm,
according to the passage of RMP: cannot be
a dynamic experience for anyone. (I think I know what you meant... I add
this note just to be sure you agree with it :))
MARCO:
>Here is the point: we, like all what exists, immediately after the
experience try to reduce the experience into
>existing and *known* patterns. If it is possible, then it's a static
experience. If it's not possible, then it's a dynamic >experience. Usually
it is a mix of both.
>I'd call "enlightenment" (the very special event you speak of) a special
>experience with a consequent creation of new patterns... new not only
>for the creator, new for all universe.
>When *I* experienced reality, many milliseconds ago, a huge quantity of
sensorial data (virtually infinite) was there. *I* >used a series of static
*filters* (inorganic, biological, social and intellectual) in the attempt to
reduce those data into >*known* patterns, discarding what's considered
useless. This *static* quality *I* perceived, is actually
>made of past experiences. The more these static filters are working, the
less the reality I perceived is dynamic. If I will >face reality with a
dynamic "attitude" (more or less spontaneously), maybe I'll let the space to
include part
>of what's left of the original dynamic experience into my *self*. I will
select in this process the DQ to be saved. This >selection (not necessarily
a conscious choice) answers to a fundamental question: "Which? .... Which
part of DQ must >be saved? Which is better?". The Latin term for "Which" is
*Qualis* .... so here we get the term *Quality*.
Your emphasis on all those *I*s, as well as the concept of static filters,
makes me think your are probably saying (more clearly) what I meant. There
is Quality, and each of us perceives it according to all these static
filters we have set (in a sense, as you suggest, to protect our finite being
from the infiniteness of reality, at all levels from biological to
intellectual).
>From your exposition, it seems that the dichotomy between DQ and sq is
itself subjective (may be dynamic to you and static to me). The DQ event is
when you perceive Quality that you didn't know was there. The sq is when you
already knew you'd experience quality - no surprise, no redefinition of
maps, no growth. I think this view is perfectly fine with me. Do you agree
on the way I stated it?
About "enlightment". This name is given to a subjective experience that
cannot be described. Those wo *talk about* enlightment (objective) often
describe it as a perception of Reality itself. So, recast in MOQ terms, I
think enlightment should be described as the event of perceiving Quality
directly, having (somehow) managed to disable all filters, or maybe at least
all non-biological filters. Whether this is something that really happens,
in these terms, is another story, but I think that would be the definition
that is more faithful to the mystics' ideal. I don't think any Buddhist
would be satisfied to say that Buddha saw the world through static filters,
however advanced with respect to those we non-enlightened use.
ANDREA (previously)
> Q1) Quality is beyond logic, and cannot be precisely described by words.
MARCO:
>Agree.... with a little rectification on "beyond". Logic is intellectual,
and intellect comes later... Logic is derived from
>Reality. It can't describe *exactly* reality 'cause the great part of
reality has been already discarded (by senses, >emotions, prejudices....)
and because of the limits of language.
ANDREA (previously):
> Q3) your perception of Quality is itself limited by your individual
horizons (context, experience, etc.). Thus you and I
> perceive Quality in different ways.
MARCO:
>RIGHT! (if we use "perception" to say what comes after the cutting edge
>of experience)
>[...]So the DQ becomes sq, and also it becomes part of me. That's why,
>actually, we are made of Quality... everything is made of Quality...
>Reality is Quality.
>I completely agree that everyone *knows* (or, is composed of) different
>static patterns, so the same data are stored (or discarded) diversely.
>Language, that is a social tool we use to share intellectual patterns,
>can at most represent all my intellectual patterns (but IMO it's however
>inadequate even to it). I'd say that *in this sense* language can be, at
>most, the hardcopy of my intellectual map of the world.
ANDREA (previously):
>If one accepts Q3), one may wonder whether believing that there
> *is* a "universal" value and that we perceive it in different ways
> is sensible.
> That is we could discuss statements of the following forms:
> Q4) Quality is one, but we perceive it in different ways;
> Q5) Quality is about how and what we perceive rather than
> being what is perceived, so Q4) is meaningless or wrong
MARCO:
>I'm more on the Q4 position. Reality/Quality is one, but we translate the
experience into different forms according to the >different static patterns
we are composed of. The Q5 seems to be closer to what I mean for sQ.
I agree. The points were about establishing a common terminology as much as
checking our respective beliefs. The experience I'm interested to, then,
becomes: the translation of DQ into sq. It seems there is a special state of
mind or attitude that can be described by: disabling as many static filters
as you can, in order to see a direction for you to grow (to the better).
This is also my interpretation of a part of Nietzsche. And all this emphasis
on the "unknowable future" on modern philosophers, possibly Heidegger.
Beyond Good and Evil: maybe, beyond *static* good and evil. But, well, I'm
digressing. Back to the point...
ANDREA (previously):
>Some statements on truth:
>T1) there is an absolute truth, which metaphysics can only approximate (as
the truth has to do with Quality
>and metaphysics is linguistic)
>T2) there is an absolute truth, that metaphysics can describe completely
>T3) the concept of truth is opposed to that of quality, so metaphysics goes
for the better and not for the true
MARCO:
>T1 is a good point. It is similar to the Heidegger's "aletheia" (truth
>as disclosure). What Heidegger fails to see is that the Greeks had
>another term to mean "truth": "episteme", that is something like
>"over-stability". Aletheia is the process of progressive disclosure of
>the episteme, that is the Reality that stays unchangeable over every
>attempt to explain it.
>Anyway, IMO there is an Episteme over every attempt of Aletheia, then T2
>seems to me impossible: intellect is a static level and no static
>pattern will grasp Reality. About T3, I'd say that Truth is a type of
>Good. In my last post to Elephant I offered my key to Truth: the more
>you want to formulate undeniable concepts [that is, the more you
>formulate a *truth*], the more you are talking of the static nature of
>your observations. [...] Back to truth, my conclusion is that it's a type
of Good.
>There is no contradiction in searching for the "true" and searching for
>the "better".... in one sentence, we all are searching for a better truth.
IMO, the discussion with elephant on these points encountered a
misunderstanding. Re-reading the sparse-trivial thread, I noticed I began
talking about language/reality and was later drawn to language/truth. From
my point of view, that was not much of a change of subject (it went
unnoticed). Actually, it can be, depending on what you mean by truth.
I would say that Marco and I essentially meant "ultimate truth"="complete
description of Reality". In this sense, as Reality cannot be described, it
is obvious that there is no ultimate truth. Elephant's position seems to be
that finding the truth means finding all you can say about Reality (leaving
some of it, the unspeakable part, unspoken). He therefore calls at his
service analysis and negations: his intent is to negate all falsehood and
rest with what is left.
Whether all falsehoods can actually be negated is still not obvious to me,
and I still think you cannot be precise in stating metaphysical truths, as
each sentence requires an interpretation and the process of interpretation
is itself endless. But anyway the specific point that was explicitly tackled
in the beginning - metaphysics can at best provide better and better
approximations of *reality* - seems to hold in both viewpoints.
To state again, in this light, what is my upmost concern: does MOQ help its
follower perceive more DQ than s/he did before knowing of RMP? does it help
at accepting new input despite all the barks from the static filters? My
opinion is yes, it does, although it may seem that trying to understand how
does it do it or how could it improved and elaborated to do it even more
seems different from the basic aim of describing reality the best that we
can (or always better).
> Again this division... "SOM reality" is a map of reality "MOQ reality"
> is another map. The only difference is that the MOQ map contains the SOM
> map, and pretends to be one step beyond, towards an infinitely distant
> horizon . Anyway, pre-static reality can't be reduced completely to any
> map... principally 'cause Quality writes the maps.
Exactly. So, how much better is MOQ map if you examine it closely? This is
the same as my question above. And:
How much better for - understanding reality (philosopher's point of view)
How much better for - living (my point of view :))
(I hope we are getting rid of some of the confusion I myself caused in my
first postings...)
Be well all...
Andrea
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 - 16:01:05 BST