Hello everyone
Kevin writes:
>Pirsig I feel left out an important addition to the static levels, which I
>have been discussing with David, Roger, and Rich. The highest level of
>static quality isn't intellectual quality, but mystical quality. Mystical
>differs from all the other static levels because it seeks to abolish them.
>But one cannot deconstruct a house without stealing the tool's of the
>master of the house, so mysticism uses static values to reach greater
>Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality clearly creates and encompasses all the
>static levels.
Glove:
Hi Kevin
I have been keeping up with the dialogue concerning mysticism as a new
level, but since I have nothing constructive to add to such a discussion,
I've stayed out of it. I disagree that any new levels should, or even can,
be added to the Metaphysics of Quality.
>Kevin:
>
>Your error lies in claiming that the four static quality levels "contain
>everything we know." The static levels are but division from an undivided
>reality named Dynamic Quality. The inorganic level divides reality into
>energy and non-energy, biological level divides reality into life and
>non-life, and so forth. But this division remain illusory - they're mere
>static abstractions severed from the true reality of Dynamic Quality.
>
>: I guess what we've all really been asking is whether it is proper to view
>: external reality as existing independently of the self. If one says that
>: "yes", there is a sound in the forest when the tree falls with no one
>: around, that person believes in an external reality apart from self. If
>one
>: says "no", there is no sound, that person believes that there is no
>reality
>: apart from the self. Obviously the Metaphysics of Quality encompasses
both
>: views. This much I can see.
>
>At true Dynamic Quality, no separations exist and all is One. The "tree"
>and the "self" and the "sound" and the "forest" are all static separations
>divided from this Oneness. Dynamically speaking, no reality exists
>independently, because "you" aren't a real separation because "you" are
>Everything. Statically speaking, "you" are confined to a bag of skin and a
>couple trillion bio-chemical reactions in a couple pounds of flesh atop
>your head. Thus, your reality differs from the reality of a tree in a
>forest. In your reality, the tree doesn't make any sound because you cannot
>experience it while in your limited existence. But since only Dynamic
>Quality is true, your limited existence doesn't define "reality." So when
>you say, glove, in reality, you must see from a perspective transcending
>only your reality. Thus, the static tree statically falls in the static
>forest only insofar as a tree is conscious of itself and itself falling and
>its environment and the ground it falls to.
>
>[Kevin sits back in chair stunned at what he has written and thinks for 15
>minutes.]
>
>Glove, after rethinking, amazingly I find your absolutely right. Even
>though both intrepretations are irrelevant to the Dynamic Truth, its *our*
>reality which matters in establishing the truth (with a lower-case t). We
>separate reality into "tree," "sound," and "forest." These abstractions
>don't exist without our view of reality. A tree doesn't experience our
>definitions of reality and thus a "tree" cannot "fall" in a "forest," much
>less create a "sound." We can say, if we were there to hear it and apply
>our reality, a tree would make the sound. But we cannot say, outside our
>reality and the way we experience our reality, that a tree makes the sound.
>Incredibly weird, but more accurate than the alternative.
>
>: But have we solved anything by stating both views are correct? I would
>: rather put it that while both views are correct, one offers a more
>expanded
>: explanation of reality as we understand it. By stating that there is no
>: sound in the forest when a tree falls with no one around, and applying
>that
>: point of view to the Metaphysics of Quality, a wider point of view opens
>up
>: for us.
>
>I agree; "a wider point of view" just opened in me. We label certain values
>"tree," we label certain values "fall," we label certain values "forest,"
>and we label certain values "sound." In Dynamic Quality, none of these
>values exist because they cannot be divided from the Oneness of Dynamic
>Quality. However, in static quality, these labels are applied by certain
>observers. Indeed, the certain static concept of an observer is created by
>our static concept of an observer. Now these static conception don't just
>magically occur; they evolve. That speck of energy and time created in the
>beginning was a static quality intent on betterment. It bettered itself
>right into us. But this process as I have described it, never actually
>occurs outside of our reality. "Energy," "time," "betterment," and so forth
>are all my definitions of reality. When we were babies, we were socialized
>to accept these labels and view reality through this paradigm. We are
>taught subject-object metaphysics before we even know how to spell the
>words. And this metaphysics dominates our thoughts. So we assume that
>everything just somehow knows its a subject or an object. We assume that
>tree thinks its a tree separate from all things around it and we assume
>that when it falls that the reality we construct in our heads somehow
>really exists outside our heads and that that darn tree makes a crushing
>sound. Now if we stay on this trip we get depressed because it means that
>nothing exists but what we create. Indeed, while thinking along this
>rationale, I don't even know that other people exist. Cognito ergo sum,
>that's all I know. So we revert to solipism. But the Metaphysics of Quality
>doesn't allow this reversion because there is Dynamic Quality which we
>can't bring into our reality because it brings us into its reality. There
>only Everything exists, nothing else. There no one could give three peanuts
>about a tree falling in a forest, much less the sound it makes, because no
>such "things" exist at all. A thing is a separation, and thus in Dynamic
>Quality no-thing exists. So what we arguing for?
Glove:
I am happy that you have found value in my words, Kevin. The advantage that
the Metaphysics of Quality offers is a more expanded viewpoint of what we
call reality. The disadvantage is that it requires a completely new set of
values in the way we classically view the world.
Best wishes
glove
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