In a message dated 6/20/02 2:09:13 PM GMT Daylight Time, skutvik@online.no
writes:
> No, I guess it's CONSCIOUSNESS which is the real issue. Have we ever
> addressed that?
>
>
> Thanks
> Bo
>
Hello Bo,
For me, humans were intellectual before the emergence of rationality.
For me, intellect before rationality was Romantic.
Romantic intellect is our mother tongue and rationality is a colonial
variation so to speak?
q-intellect as you call it, appears to me to be nothing more than our mother
tongue.
However, the calling out from our mother tongue is not insignificant, for it
is calling us home?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
The diagram on page 252 of ZMM is a little misleading in my view.
Romantic quality always was prior to Classic quality and in my view, Classic
quality emerges from the Romantic as is clearly indicated by the arbitrary
nature of mathematics?
Romantic is holistic, indeterminate, unconditioned, un-patterned unity from
which the Classic is a selection.
This is indicated by the sand analogy in ZMM: Reality is Quality, Romantic
quality is a pile of sand and Classic quality is a discrimination of the pile
into categories.
The MOQ is Classic quality.
The MOQ is spoken in the colonial dialect (static) and is derivative from our
mother tongue (dynamic).
Quality produces both Romantic (Dynamic) and Classic (static) quality.
There are many in this forum who regard the MOQ from an epistemic
perspective, and these individuals are talking at odds with those of us who
view the MOQ from a metaphysical perspective?
For the epistemes, experience generates our sense of quality.
For the metaphysicians, Quality generates our experience.
So this is how the epistemes see the other half:
The metaphysicians cannot prove their position, for proof is an epistemic
concern!
The epistemes can argue that metaphysics is speculation.
How do the epistemes appear to the metaphysician?
The epistemes are bounded by their chosen language.
Epistemes ARE language!
CONSCIOUSNESS?
Nice question?
Here is my take on it:
Consciousness is a metaphor for quality.
When i say Quality, i mean the big one - not DQ or SQ, but reality itself.
Each level of the MOQ is a new expression of consciousness.
This is why i have banged my head against a wall trying to find a way of
discussing social patterns from outside the individual, for our culture IS
conscious whether you or I live or die.
If one asks, 'Then where is the centre of social consciousness?' the answer
may be, 'it is everywhere humans are.'
'We add to each other like a coral reef.' Neil Peart.
Classic quality, i am more and more convinced began with maths.
Maths began with experience of the heavens?
Therefore, Inorganic quality isomorphed itself into the social quality of
humans.
Classic quality became truth and we know where that lead?
I am not so sure the MOQ levels are as discrete as Lila suggests?
I have a feeling that sympathetic resonance's may be set up between levels?
I feel this view depends upon whether one views the MOQ as a human centred
(H-MOQ) or cosmos centred (C-MOQ)?
The cosmos centred MOQ is my favourite.
I feel it is Pirsig's intended version as may be indicated by his discussion
of the 'Giant' which appears to be quite clearly more than individual?
I understand C-MOQ may not be how everyone in this forum sees it?
So let's read back H-MOQ and C-MOQ into our epistemes and metaphysicians:
The epistemes are H-MOQers!
The metaphysicians can be both H-MOQ or C-MOQ but i feel are committed to
C-MOQ?
A H-MOQer may more inclined to look at reality in terms of psychology?
A C-MOQer may be more inclined to look at reality in terms of God?
'The way out is the way in.' Neil Peart.
A H-MOQer, like John Beasley i believe, feels quality is known or experienced
psychologically, and may view mystical experience as a special case of this?
A C-MOQer like myself, feels their is far more than 'I' and does not feel
this 'more than I' to be a H-MOQ mystical self delusion. For me, the mystical
is a move away from, and towards Romantic quality. As a metaphysician,
Romantic quality is a move away from, and a move towards unity with reality -
Quality.
This last description of C-MOQ is very close to Plotinus i feel.
Plotinus had no concept of science, Hubble space telescopes, DNA or quantum
fields.
We, do recognise that there is something quite wonderful, 'Out there' that,
'we' are a part of, and it would appear that we, as conscious entities,
(perhaps i should say, very conscious' entities)? may wish to recognise also
that Romantic mother tongue is more in sympathetic tune with the cosmos than
is our Classic dialect?
Of course, the H-MOQers are essentially still locked into a Subject/Object
metaphysics.
But, as a C-MOQer/metaphysician, 'I' would say that!!!!
All the best,
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 - 16:02:20 BST