Hi John,
Thanks for your response.
But what about this noun business?
I have presented a view that supports the noun referent.
In a message dated 7/26/01 3:19:22 AM GMT Daylight Time,
beasley@austarnet.com.au writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Consciousness Explained
Date: 7/26/01 3:19:22 AM GMT Daylight Time
From: beasley@austarnet.com.au (John Beasley)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Hullo Squonk,
You say "Pirsig is a bunch of patterns". "The patterns mediate DQ." "In
order to mediate well one has to dissolve into DQ."
There is an ambiguity here. Either Pirsig is patterns, and the patterns
mediate DQ, or, Pirsig is a human being (one) who is able to mediate DQ well
by dissolving into it. Both can't be true, as an explanation of how DQ is
mediated, so far as I can see.
You are making a very grave error here John.
A human being is nothing but patterns.
Pirsig's flesh and bones are inorganic patterns of value.
Pirsig's organised structure as flesh and bones are biological patterns of
value.
Pirsig's cultural position is part of an interpersonal social pattern of
value.
Pirsig's abstractions are part of an intellectual pattern of value.
The name 'Pirsig' hides much of the above because names are products of SOM.
Pirsig may be categorised in the Aristotelian sense as a Human, but the
category itself is the product of SOM. (I am not suggesting you are a rampant
Aristotelian, but the language of his metaphysics still lingers into the 21st
century.)
The patterns and human are the same.
A human IS patterns responding to DQ.
When Pirsig 'creates' his intellectual patterns are the patterns doing the
dissolving and doing the mediating. Pirsig's leg doesn't dissolve into DQ
because flesh and bone are very static patterns of value.
While I think the first explanation is nonsense, Pirsig comes very close to
endorsing it in Lila. That is one of the problems I have with Pirsig's MOQ.
John B
>>
Well, the problem does not exist if one remembers that EVERYTHING is a
pattern of value, (of one sort or another0 as suggested by a MOQ.
DQ is the noun. DQ is that which does all the moving and shaking. DQ was here
well before intellectual patterns and dragged intellectual patterns kicking
and screaming into our patterned universe.
You say it may be permissible to think of Quality as a noun in the context of
theology.
I feel Pirsig is not a theosophist, and does not enter the area in this
manner.
Rather, we may find it more fruitful to regard Quality as a noun in the
context of Theogony.
It seems to me, that Theogony and Cosmogony become the same area if one
accepts Pirsig's suggestion that causation is a product of SOM.
What there 'is' is here because it is more valuable for it to be here in the
first place.
The God(s), space-time, the quantum vacuum; However we look at it, it's all
an analogue of Quality.
All the very best to you!
Squonk. :-)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:25 BST