ROGER PRAYS WE ARE APPROACHING UNITY
Follow carefully and /or redirect me quick........either way, I see a chance
for unity of understanding. Please read and reread and then read again the
quotes I have here from RMP, Ant and Nishida. They clarify that the definition
to all the terms and the release from the idealism claim have a common root:
To start off, let me use Magnus' quote where he joins David B. in accusing me
of solipsism/idealism.
I wrote:
<<<<<<
1a)Quality is value. Everything is defined and created by value.
1b)Dynamic Quality is pure experience. Pure experience is preconceptual value
change or interaction.
3)Static quality is patterned, conceptualized experience.
2)The quality event is an experience event collapsing potential preconceptual
quality into definite conceptualized patterns.>>>>>>
Magnus responded:
<<<<<<<<<<<<
No Roger! No! This is where the mind-matter split begins, and there's no end
to it! Your version of SQ (3) is intellectual patterns only, not any other
type.
And your version of DQ (1b) is all types of patterns, or more precisely the
QE.
If DQ would be "pure preconceptual experience", then the earths history would
consist of nothing but DQ until a few million years ago when the first human
formed her first thought.>>>>>>>
I thought my post from two days ago would free me from this charge, but I
guess not. In light of our attempts at clarifying the MOQ, I believe WE
ABSOLUTELY MUST ALL COME TO GRIPS WITH THIS ISSUE. If I have any
misunderstandings, I want to clear them up this week.
However, Pirsig's quote from Glove only further reinforces that my
understanding is correct (or that I need a good spanking).
Pirsig defined DQ as both experience (in Lila repeatedly), and as a stream of
Quality events ( in SODV).
So, these terms (DQ and QE) are now both defined in terms of each other. He
also says that there are no things in themselves outside experience, and that
experience is pure quality which gives rise to intellectual patterns which in
turn produce a division between subjects and objects. I need someone to point
out how what I am saying disagrees with Pirsig's new quote below (thx
Glove!!!!):
"There are no things in
>themselves outside experience" is true but the MOQ sees
>experience differently from subject-object metaphysics.
>Experience in a SOM is an action of the object upon the
>subject. In the MOQ, experience is pure Quality which
>gives rise to the creation of intellectual patterns which
>in turn produce a division between subjects and objects."
Experience is the stream of QE's producing intellectual patterns,subjects and
objects. It is pure quality.Experience is DQ which creates patterns...which
by definition are patterns of experience.
I started this thread by asking us to accept Pirsig's own challenge to go
beyond Lila and the stale "1 %" version of the MOQ from almost 10 years ago.
I am now pretty convinced that Pirsig has already long since clarified this
issue and moved beyond again......
At least we? have caught up to the next plateau...
Rog
PS The prior quotes;
"From a mystic point of view, I think you can say that experience (or what
Pirsig terms the QE) creates all entities from sub-atomic particles to people
so the question for whom or what HAS the experience does not arise (as
experience has them)." [Ant]
"One issue that we encounter is that of possible solipsism.....That
consciousness must be someone's conciousness simply means that consciousness
must have a unity.The idea that there must be a possessor of consciousness
above and beyond this unity is an arbitrary assumption."[Nishida]
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST