Hey Roger and Glove, Platt, Ken, Walter & Rich,
I really enjoyed your post, Roger, though that could just be because you didn't
call my idea "SOM B/S" :>)
At this point I'm not sure what to think. I found another Pirsig quote that
has me stranded on a rock between empiricism and solipsism.
On pg 439 teal is written, "'Dharma' is Quality itself, the principle of
'rightness' which gives structure and purpose to the evolution of all life and
to the evolving understanding of the universe WHICH LIFE HAS CREATED. ...
within modern Buddhist thought dharma becomes the phenomenal world - the object
of perception, thought, or understanding."
I still don't believe you can apply solipsism to the MOQ though, unless you
are willing to say that even you yourself exist only in your own head.
Ideas? Thoughts? (in your own head or otherwise ;)
- Mary
> 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? 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.
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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.
>
> But I could be wrong,
> Rog
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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