ROGER REPLIES TO RICH"S AWESOME POST
Rich, your post was absolutely intriguing. Thank you very much.
RICH:
How's this as a rule of thumb:
"The more Dynamic the experience, the more Conscious the experiencer"
ROGER:
Your examples were very dynamic in their impact. Please allow me again to
edit your lead in slightly..... this time by only one letter:
"The more Dynamic the experience, the more Conscious the EXPERIENCE". Again,
let me add the caveat that this is not experienced solipsistic experience, it
is Direct experience preceding any subj. or obj.
The more I think about this the more I am convinced that there is something
precious in this statement. Anyone else care to add any thoughts?
RICH:
So, as we move up the four levels, we are more conscious of them.
Barely ever of Ino, only of Bio when something goes wrong (or really
right - good food, sex..) Often of Soc, almost always of Int - 'you'
are aware of your thoughts.
ROGER:
Yes!!!!! The dynamicness of the experience breaks us out of the static
illusion.
RICH:
For myself, this is good, so far. But here's the 'kicker':[Pirsig Quote]
"There isn't any 'man' independent of the patterns. Man is the
patterns. This fictitious 'man' has many synonyms: 'mankind',
'people', 'the public'...'I', 'he', 'they'....Like 'substance' they
can be used as long as it is remembered that they're terms for
collections of patterns and not some independent primary reality of
their own"
Okay, but isn't this contradictory:
"...To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static
patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one
follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is
free." - pg.180
AND:
"...societies and thoughts and principles themselves are no more than
sets of static patterns. These patterns can't by themselves perceive
or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that."
Who the hell is the "one" who "follows", "perceive(s) or adjust(s)",
who is a "living being"???
I have thought this to be the CONSCIOUS me, the ONE who is ALWAYS
there, who "watches" and controls 'his' four levels of static
patterns of morality and "decides" when to make Dynamic increments,
or respond to Dynamic situations...
What do you think? Can you honestly go to work tomorrow with the
guiding principle that really the 'thing' named "Roger" has no
independent existence of 'it's' own, whatsoever?
Is our conversation but two intellectual patterns meeting?
How is it "decided" to switch from one code of morality to another,
regarding the movements of this body, direction of these thoughts?
ROGER:
Sorry for the long quote cut'n'paste, I hate excessive quoting (and it
violates our charter), but Rich again has my mind spinning. Personally, I can
accept the fact that experience has me, but I think he has found another
possible platypus. To be honest, I always saw the extension toward "living
things" as suspect, but I never noticed it was seemingly contradictory. I
suspect an MOQ breakthrough if someone can help Us through this dilemma. Any
takers?
RICH:
Would you agree that these lines of thought must lead to the
conclusion that... all these static patterns which I thought were
"ME", a "MAN", are nothing but MAYA - illusion... because REAL-ly,
only Dynamic Quality exists - the pre-intellectual cutting edge...
This leads us back to the question of capitalizing static Quality,
doesn't it?
ROGER:
But without the illusion reality can't exist either. Is the projectionist
higher art than the film? Would anyone even need a projectionist without the
film? Don't static and DQ create each other?
As for your static timeline......YAWN......:-)
And finally:
RICH:
Typing in a universe which is not only Expanding... but according to
the latest Physical discoveries (not fully accepted)... is
ACCELERATING - becoming MORE DYNAMIC... this really blows me away.
Anyone else?
According to relativity, as something approaches the speed of light,
it's mass increases, and intrinsic time decreases. That's why we
can't ever go faster than 300 something thousand kilometres per
second, because we'd have infinite mass and time would stop. Not
possible.
ROGER:
Again, my head is spinning........ Have you been doing peyote or something
Rich? I need to contemplate this entire post better. Does anyone else see
the interesting twisting road Rich has offered to us?
As for the expanding universe thing, I have a weird thot that has always been
with me. What is the difference between an expanding universe (expanding
space), and a universe with shrinking matter? In relativity, aren't we saying
the same thing? By repositioning the universe in this way, does it lead to
different perceptions and mental models? Could it be that matter is
shrinking at an accelerating pace?
And by the way, is a faster expansion actually more dynamic, or is it less?
The faster it expands , the less the interaction (in SOM terms).
Thanks again for sharing , Rich.
Roger
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:56 BST