Hi John and Scott,
Hmm... very interesting.
[John] "Dynamic quality is encountered in the immediacy of experience. As
children
> > we experienced the dynamic almost constantly."
Hmm. The Quality event is where and when we, humans, encounter Quality. In
Lila, Pirsig changed the Quality Event as an encounter between us an Dynamic
Quality. Not sure if this was a good idea or not. We all encounter life
immediately in our experience but children do not and can not analyze that
experience. Thus they live in the moment. That act of analyzing the
experience is what makes the Dynamic into Static. Hence: "Memory and
judgment create
> > static values, which then dominate even our sensory input, so that
> > increasingly we are aware only of what conforms to these time patterned
> > values. These static values are not bogus or useless - they are what
allow
> > us to function in the world. But they do create problems for us, despite
> > facilitating our everyday life. "
When Scott says "I feel your
> "immediate experience" is in danger of becoming an idol, also the
> concept of the "lure" of DQ. You mitigate this somewhat in referring to
> Wilber, and his warning of the pre/trans fallacy, but in fact, I suspect
> that that is what you are implying: to gradually remove the accretions
> of the intellect to return to an infantile paradise (I know,
> oversimplifying, but I don't see what else you are offering)."
To me he is pointing out the focus on "immediate experience" is not the
same as Dynamic Quality and it is not the same as the pre-personal,
pre-rational [To use Wilber terms] processing of Children who encounter
experience with the trans-personal/ trans-rational experience of
encountering DQ that you are trying to discuss.
Do you not think that there is a difference between Quality and Dynamic
Quality. What I am getting at is that the flow of Quality is its DQ form,
but the underlying nature of it all is Q. The lure is toward not the
activity of Quality but Quality itself?
[John] "Both the egoic self and the constructed world must be unravelled if
> > we are to regain the immediacy of access to the dynamic, which we
enjoyed as
> > children. "
Here I think is what Scott is noticing and commenting upon. The pre/trans
fallacy is that childhood [pre] must be equivalent to the Mystical[trans],
since it is not rational. Childhood is a time of un-processed experience.
Not because of a seeking after Bliss, but because the tools to do the
processing have not been acquired. To get to the trans, to seek the TRUE,
THE GOOD, AND BEAUTIFUL, THE TAO, OR QUALTIY OR THE DIVINE is a goal of an
adult, a child can't truly understand any of it. Though children do have
peak experiences or encounters with the Divine.
Scott was correct in saying we need to use the adult tools we have to get
to Q, "> Also why I emphasize
> the importance of SOT as being *on the way* to Enlightenment. When its
> presuppositions (SOM) are displaced through never-ceasing
> deconstruction, one's attachments to those presuppositions and their
> unpleasant consequences is lessened. One is still "doing SOT" but with
> ever-lessening egoic attachment to one's thinking. In this way thinking
> becomes less of a tool and more its own reward. It is creativity like
> any other, and that is freedom.
>
> Again, it is not that one becomes Enlightened by thinking about it, but
> that in purifying one's thinking one becomes less egoic. "
He is describing his understanding of how to transcend our present state of
"adult" mind to reach toward the Source. This is his "purifying".
I agree that the creation of Static steps us back from the Dynamic and thus
away from Quality in its pure form of the Source.
It is true that "> The human sequence thus implied begins with an immersion
in immediate
> > experience in early infancy." In infancy all there is, is un-processed
experience. There are no tools to process. Hence immersion in immediate
experience. Going back to infancy is neither possible or valuable. It is a
metaphoric direction towards simplicity, which is what Lao Tsu is doing when
he praises infancy.
I think that you are trying to talk about the lure of the Divine. I think
this is not DQ, but Q. Q is found in a moment of immediate experience
called mystical communion. It is a feeling of time-less-ness. A feeling of
eternal present. But this is how it feels. It is not actually connecting
to immediate experience. It is connecting to Quality, the Source.
Hmmm.
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: MD Value and Time
> John,
>
> I doubt that you will be surprised if I somewhat disagree. I feel your
> "immediate experience" is in danger of becoming an idol, also the
> concept of the "lure" of DQ. You mitigate this somewhat in referring to
> Wilber, and his warning of the pre/trans fallacy, but in fact, I suspect
> that that is what you are implying: to gradually remove the accretions
> of the intellect to return to an infantile paradise (I know,
> oversimplifying, but I don't see what else you are offering).
>
> Hence my recommendation of an exploration of differential mysticism, to
> counter the tendency of the above toward idolatry. Also why I emphasize
> the importance of SOT as being *on the way* to Enlightenment. When its
> presuppositions (SOM) are displaced through never-ceasing
> deconstruction, one's attachments to those presuppositions and their
> unpleasant consequences is lessened. One is still "doing SOT" but with
> ever-lessening egoic attachment to one's thinking. In this way thinking
> becomes less of a tool and more its own reward. It is creativity like
> any other, and that is freedom.
>
> Again, it is not that one becomes Enlightened by thinking about it, but
> that in purifying one's thinking one becomes less egoic. I suspect that
> John Wren-Lewis was, before his near-death experience, a very fluid
> thinker, which allowed him to be open to what happened to him, and not
> run for shelter.
>
> I am, you should note, fully agreeing with Wilber's quote about
> Whitehead. And the highest level of our current state is the intellect,
> so that is where we should direct our efforts, to see it working in all
> the lower levels (well, I am ignoring art, but I would like to see
> philosophy turn itself into an art form). This is Logos-philosophy,
> which sees our intellect as a pale reflection of the Logos. Hence we
> should not try to unravel it, but to purify it.
>
> - Scott
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:24 BST