>ROGER TRIES TO RESTATE THE ISSUES BEFORE
>WE ALL GET LOST IN A PILE OF CUT'N'PASTES
>AND ENDS WITH A MYSTICAL TWIST
>
>Glove, Platt, Mary, Ken, Walter and Rich:
>
>I have tried to summarize the salient points from the past few days. Let
me
>know what I have missed, but sometimes all the overpasting just obscures
>relevant dialogue. Once in a while, it would help if we could rephrase what
>we think we read so that we can give our audience a chance to correct our
>view. This is your opportunity to correct me.
>
>FIRST SOME SELECTIVE BACKGROUND:
>
>1)Glove started the ball rolling by referencing the following Pirsigian
quote
>as proof that the world is subjective and began with his own experiences:
>>"These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to
>>Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that."
>
>2)Platt then agreed, saying that "Mine is the only world."
>
>3) I (Roger) then suggested to Glove that if this statement of Pirsig's (or
>of Platt's) is correct that it undermines the entire foundation of the MOQ.
>If only living beings can respond or perceive DQ, then where do living
beings
>come from? Doesn't this undermine the entire inorganic level?
>
>4)Mary then responded that I was misinterpreting Pirsig and that he was
only
>referencing social and intellectual patterns.
>
>ROGER's COMMENTARY:
>
>IF Pirsig is only refering to social and intellectual patterns, then Mary
has
>provided a way out of the dilemma. But I don't think he was. I think he
was
>referring to static patterns in general. Anyone else out there have an
>opinion?
Glove:
I took this from the archive which may be of interest to this discussion:
On November 30th 1997 Anthony [McWatt] wrote to Pirsig
with the following question:
"In chapter 12 of LILA you state that the four static
levels of value patterns are discrete and largely
independent. To the extent that reality is one continuous
whole, I take it you use the four levels as a practical
device (as per subjects and objects) rather than saying
something ABSOLUTELY definite about reality (or Dynamic
Quality) itself?"
On January 2nd 1998 Pirsig wrote back to Anthony
with the following:
"Yes, the four levels are a practical device, a static
intellectual pattern, rather than a representation of
ultimate reality."
Glove:
I think that settles the question of whether Pirsig was referring only to
social or intellect patterns.
Roger:
If Mary's interpretation is correct though it does seem to shoot a
>minor hole in Glove's argument and Platt's agreement that the MOQ is
>solipsistic.
Glove:
I want to know what you did with Mystic Roger...
>Roger:
>MORE BACKGROUND:
>
>5)Ken then suggested that "Quality" is the original quality and that DQ
>applies only to sentience.
>
>6)Mary questioned her Dad's separation or distinction of Quality from DQ
and
>responded that "I don't think Prisig intends DQ to apply only to sentience.
>I think DQ acts at all levels, including the Inorganic."
>
>7)Glove then agrees with selective portions of Mary's posts but clarifies:
>>That which is without value cannot be named, cannot be recognized. Is
there
>>such a thing as non-experience? Non-value? No, "it" is not a thing as we
>>normally think of as thing. Therefore to make any statement concerning
>>non-experience is problematical. The same applies to Dynamic Quality.
>
>8) Platt further repeats that when he loses his consciousness that the
world
>will be lost with it.
>
>MORE ROGER COMMENTARY:
>
>I think I see where Platt and Glove are going with this. They seem to be
>taking an angle of the MOQ where that which is not experienced does not
>exist. If this is correct then the MOQ is Idealistic solipsism.
Glove:
Only taken out of context can my quote mean what you say here. Re reading my
email from whence this quote came I see that I said:
"We can no longer refer to an
independently existing reality apart from observation and unambiguous
communication about said reality. We can still deal with reality but we must
realize that all our dealings are culturally derived and not
representational of an independently existing reality as is classically
held."
I did not say that which is not experienced does not exist... I said making
any statement about what does not exist is problematical.
Roger:
As Glove
>shows us, the MOQ does state that that which has not been experienced is
>conceptually unknown. In fact, Pirsig explains this in detail in SODV.
>However he doesn't deny the conceptual unknown's existence, he just states
>that it is DQ. He states that to mention the unmeasured phenomenal object
>would be meaningless....and that an unmeasured object has no properties.and
>is unpatterned. I quote:"The patterns only emerge after an experiment. The
>unmeasured phenomenal object is not phenomenal and not an object."
>
>Clearly, I agree that there ain't no subjects without objects. They are two
>sides of the same illusory coin. However to say that only living beings
>perceive and adjust to DQ is PURE SOM B/S. Experience does not just create
>the illusory object, it also creates the illusory subject. Living beings
>themselves are just collections of patterns derived from DQ. DQ is not
>something to be responded to....it is the response itself. It is the event
>from which living beings are derived. Experience is primary. Experience is
>DQ. You do not exist independent of the world. The world does not exist
>independent of you. But DQ always exists everywhere. And you and I are
not
>really the illusions of Maya. The true deep reality is that we are pure
DQ.
Glove:
Wait a minute... I do see Mystic Roger lurking about! Consider for a moment
that we are perceivers of reality and if that is so then responding to
Dynamic Quality is the highest moral action we can take and to not respond
to DQ is to be in stasis. But experience is not Dynamic Quality. Experience
is not even primary. Experience is secondary to the Quality Event. Reponse
can come before experience in certain instances. Take the act of hammering
for example. Response is Dynamic yet only experienced thru remembering the
act of hammering. Knowing the act. Performing it. Response to DQ is
unactualized until experienced then it is actualized as remembered. Hmmm...
>
>There is no provision for life after death in the MOQ. However, there is
the
>provision that your life was an illusion from the beginning. Your life and
>your world is just the illusory dance of Lila.
Glove:
How can there be life after death? Isn't that really a bit impossible? If
there is something after death it is "something" we cannot conceive of, a
dazzling dark, a great mystery that will only be revealed to us as we wait.
But not life... enjoy it while we may!
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