Dan and Marco,
Please excuse me for getting into your discussion, but I see your
comments about reality as another key to help me get a bit better
understanding of what Pirsig and others are saying about quality.
My assumption has always been that a sunset, for example, is
really there--not an illusion. But I have always "known" that I do
not see the sunset itself. I "see" the result of my brain
processing the light that enters my eye after being reflected by
the clouds and the atmosphere. So I also assume that I cannot peek
over my interpretations of things, my judgments, to get at things
in the raw. At least not intellectually. And words, upon which we
build any metaphysic, are how we interpret and judge--accurately
or not.
Paul Rezendes, author of "The Wild Within" teaches that direct
seeing, which is sensory and in the body, is "better" than
identification or recognition, which are intellectual and in the
head. In my opinion, we need both to survive and to experience
quality. Direct seeing is a metaphor for the ways in which I feel
I have been able to transcend my judgments and interpretations of
things to get at them in the raw. Later, my brain kicks in, and I
go off into explanations and such. Or laugh and lie about it
around the campfire! :))
If this is not at the core of what you folks are discussing,
please excuse my interruption...
Billy Dean
Info@billydee.com
http://www.billydee.com
"It is the journey that enlightens--not the destination..."
Kwai Chang Caine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco" <marble@inwind.it>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: MD Self, Free/Determinism : a short essay (again...
;)
> Hi Dan
>
> sorry for the little delay
>
>
> D:
> > The image in our mind of reality is reality. There is no other
reality. Does
> > a dog have Buddha nature, or not?
>
> RMP:
> «But one day in the classroom the professor of philosophy was
blithely
> expounding on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed
the fiftieth time
> and Phædrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed
that the atomic
> bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory.
The professor
> smiled and said yes. That was the end of the exchange.
> Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have
been correct,
> but for Phædrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers
regularly and is
> concerned with such things as mass destruction of human beings
that answer was
> hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and
gave up. »
>
> Dan:
> > I think the problem here arises when we assume there is an
independent
> > relationship apart from the rest of reality (being) and then
project that
> > relationship onto other living beings. There is no self
independent of the
> > patterns. Nor is there a plant independent of the patterns.
>
> RMP:
> «But although the four systems are exhaustive they are not
exclusive. They all
> operate at the same time in ways that are almost independent of
each other»
>
> «The value that holds a glass of water together is an inorganic
pattern of
> value. The value that holds a nation together is a social
pattern of value. They
> are completely different from each other because they are at
different
> evolutionary levels. And they are completely different from the
biological
> pattern that can cause the most skeptical of intellectuals to
leap from a hot
> stove. These patterns have nothing in common except the historic
evolutionary
> process that created all of them».
>
>
>
> Marco:
> Sorry Dan, I'm sure you perfectly know these and other passages
from ZAMM and
> LILA, but sometimes I feel the need to reread something to be
sure it was not a
> dream.
>
> Dan, I've come to the conclusion that this your (and other's)
interpretation of
> the MOQ is the most dangerous I've found for the MOQ itself. I
read newspapers,
> as Phaedrus says, and I find it "hopelessly inadequate".
Inadequate to explain
> the world I live in. The situations of my everyday life. And,
last but not
> least, the input I receive from my senses... and I thought we
were also
> empiricists....
>
> «The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with
experience, and
> economy of explanation». That's right, even the idea that the
Earth goes round
> the Sun is not in agreement with experience, but at least they
have offered an
> economic explanation for that. But saying that the plant I'm
looking at exists
> only in my mind ("There is no other reality"... ) lacks of all
these basilar
> factors.
>
> IMO it's an absurdity, but it's not the worst absurdity I've
heard in my life,
> and anyway who am I to state the absurdity of someone else?
I've never denied
> that in my mind there's an incomplete image of reality, full of
mistakes and
> prejudices. And I've never denied that this incomplete image of
reality I have
> in my mind is also real. My idea that your position is absurd is
probably also
> full of mistakes and incomplete.... of course, your idea about
that the pine
> tree is only in my mind should be also full of mistakes and
incomplete.
>
> Assumptions. The MOQ also is an idea, an assumption. The MOQ
assumption tells
> that the plant exists thanks to biological patterns of value,
using the inferior
> inorganic level as support. The MOQ assumption tells that those
kinds of
> patterns have existed in times before any social patterns and
any intellectual
> assumptions. So, IMHO assuming that plants are assumptions of my
mind, and NOT
> independent biological and inorganic patterns of value, it is
also assuming that
> the MOQ is wrong. It is well legal, BUT IT IS NOT MOQ.
>
>
> Sorry for sharing my absurdities.
>
> Ciao,
> Marco.
>
> «He left the thread, closed the mail program and gave up».
>
>
>
> p.s.
>
> Marco:
> > >Tell me. Don't you agree that the there's no place for two
different
> > >undefinable
> > >things?
>
> Dan:
> > There is no such thing as an undefinable thing. Things are
defined. Dynamic
> > Quality is not a thing.
>
> Marco:
> You perfectly know what I was meaning. You are just playing with
words. Not very
> constructive.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 - 16:01:28 BST