Hi, Kevin and MOQers.
After an 8 hour workday, a way-too-short exercise session and building a
short section of stairs, it is probably too late for me to be attempting
to make much sense. If so I apologize and will try again later.
My wife would say it was too late 20 years ago. Hell, she may be right.
Kevin Sanchez wrote:
> I reply that the whole of the Metaphysics of Quality is an intellectual
> construct.
Okay.
>The language used to write this sentence and the thought used to
> consider "what is real?", I as a subject construct intellectually. Even
> Pirsig admits this when he answers the mystics' objection to a metaphysics.
Well...yes and, simply because we can't construct beyond the limits of
our language and experience, no. There is a real subject "I" that
relates to a object "any or every thing else." We create imperfect
metaphors for reality (everything else), and then behave as though the
metaphors are true. So do mystics. The trick is to realize that your
constructs are NOT reality and to be ready to adjust them as your
experience grows.
> Yet simply because a mystic level would be intellectually constructed
> doesn't harm the clarity it brings to the Metaphysics of Quality.
Yes, it does. It adds one more level to obscure our direct perception of
DQ.
> Indeed, I
> think your comment repeats is grounded in the mystics' objection that all
> intellectual constructs should be rejected. I think you and I would agree
> that such an objection is bunk.
Agreed.
>If so, we should be too afraid to
> intellectualize our search for Dynamic Quality.
Why?
>But I think we must pay
> heed to the mystics' objection by leaving Dynamic Quality as undefinable.
Agreed. Mostly because it IS undefinable.
> Most of definitions put on the back of Dynamic Quality should be
> transferred to the mystic level.
Nope. If I understand you correctly, they are open to intellectual
analysis as soon as they are "defined" and no longer belong in the
mystic realm.
> Then we have re-created Pirsig's
> undefinable and perfect Quality and met the mystics' objection while still
> remaining true to the process of metaphysical reason. What do you think?
Lost me. Leaving DQ undefined is central to the MOQ. Discussing the
attributes of DQ is well within the scope of reason.
There are a couple of us who (still) have the sneaking suspicion that DQ
= "God". I would not say that the attributes of God ARE God, though.
I was originally a backer of a 5th level and thought that a
characteristic of that level should be direct experience of DQ. But the
additional level isn't necessary because DQ can be "experienced" in ANY
of the levels.
Just as I thought, I'm not sure I'm making sense. I'll post this just in
case it does and then I think I'll go to bed.
drose
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 - 16:02:55 BST