Hello everyone
I've been out the last couple days breaking in my '78 Goldwing that my
brother, my son and I rebuilt over the winter. I took much inspiration for
the doing of the project from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
None of us had ever torn apart something that complex and actually gotten it
back together again so I was somewhat apprehensive going in. It's very neat
riding it now and knowing, I mean really knowing, about the bike.
Platt wrote:
>Hi Glove and Group:
>
>On June 16, Glove wrote:
>
>> So what is the reason for reason? Reason is a way for us to be
comfortable.
>> We tell ourselves that we know how the universe began... we even
calculate
>> to the microsecond what occurred at the beginning of the universe with
our
>> reasoning. Things are not quite so scary for us then perhaps? Reason is
the
>> capability to form conceptual agreements with other humans and elevate
>> ourselves to the top of the evolutionary ladder. A grand culmination of
>> billions and billions of years, resulting in us! How can we not help but
>> swell up our chests in pride...
>Platt:
>
>Not only does reason make us comfortable, it’s necessary for our
>survival. Unlike animals who are born with the tools needed to live, we
>humans must use our wits to outfox mother nature and her predatory
>creatures. Basic to our being here at all is the If-Then pattern of
thought:
>“If we surround that wild pig with our spears, brother Sapiens, then we'll
>eat tonight.”
Glove:
Yes you are right, of course. I just read a very interesting article on
socializing spiders and some of the studies being done on them in the hopes
of identifying the traits of their, and our, social evolution. It is here...
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/5_8_99/bob2.htm
... if anyone is interested in reading it. Social spiders seem to interact
like mammals rather than insects... one researcher compared them to a herd
of wildebeests and another to a pride of lions. Are the spiders capable of
If-Then thinking too?
>
>Glove:
>
>> The universe didn't begin billions of years ago... it began when we each
>> became aware of it. And it will not end in billions of years as it
expands
>> into plasma streams or collapses back on itself... it will end when each
of
>> us as individuals die. That is the beginning and ending of Quality as we
>> understand it to be. That is the beginning and ending of the universe.
And
>> to my understanding, the MOQ states the same.
>Platt:
>
>That’s my understanding, too. I'm thinking of having written on my
>tombstone, “Mine was the only world."
>
>We have yet to come to terms with quantum physics which has
>demonstrated conclusively that in some mysterious way subject and
>object are united.
>
>We're built to see the world as split between subject and object, us and
>them, before and after, here and there, etc. Such imaginary divisions
>create our life-saving rational patterns. We see the world as we need to
>to survive.
>
>I think Glove's statement might well be used as the first principle of the
>MOQ. If we can't agree on that, we may be just using the MOQ to support
>our own preconceived moral patterns or philosophical worldviews.
Rich:
With all due respect, guys, I think that Glove's statement is really quite
strikingly incompatible with the MOQ. What you seem to be doing is giving
the status of primary reality to the individual self, ending with an
ego-centric view of Quality. Let's not flatter ourselves. This is just what
Phaedrus despised. Reality, or Quality, is NOT dependent on a subject for
it's existence. Subjects, and the objects I think you implicitly deny, are
dependent on Quality for THEIR existence, "revolving around the sun of
Quality", so to speak.
Glove:
Experience as Quality is more than subjective. In the formulating of
unambiguous agreements with each other we objectify reality... make it
separate from the subjective self. But in doing so we fail to consider it is
the self which must observe objective reality in the first place.
Rich:
Epistemologically you may never prove to yourselves that the outside world
exists, but the framework of ontological understanding known as the MOQ has
as an essential foundation an "objective" evolution of Quality - beginning
with matter (sun/earth), forming bodies and societies and the (Imperfect)
representations of the aforementioned as conceived by individual intellects.
The beauty of his work is that these realities are themselves Value.
Glove:
Pirsig writes: "These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to
Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that." (pg. 185 teal paperback)
I fail to see where objectivity comes into the picture here, but I will
ponder it further.
Rich:
What is consciousness? We must explain it within the MOQ.
Walter writes:
But what is a "primary reality" ?
Perhaps, there is but one "reality", but perceptions of reality are specific
to the individual doing the perceiving.
Hence there are at a minimum as many views of reality as there are sentient
beings conscious at any instant.
Also, that reality is dynamic, is changing for each individual from instant
to instant.
Reality is a lot more like a video tape than a snapshot.
Glove:
I agree with you Walter. I just received your second email and you bring up
many excellent points. I hope to answer it soon!
Best wishes
glove
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 - 16:03:05 BST