Rob et al.:
>Rich, although I can feel people saying "don't push him any farther", I
>must
>admit I appreciate your humour AND your ideas!
Thank you. Though any pushing comes from within - and hopefully towards -
betterness. This means a dose or two of silliness, evil and ignorance along
the way. Maya, desire and suffering, it seems, shed the greatest light on
truth, humility and bliss.
An interesting point here. In the strictest 'Pirsigian' sense, this is
neither 'my' humour nor 'my' ideas. Not unless one admits of some "selfness"
APART from 'your' static patterns (location, body, culture, philosophy) and
the Dynamic undifferentiated continuum embracing such 'individually
cohering' manifestions of Quality. Pirsig denies the existence of anything
outside DQ or sq:
"...nothing has or dominates Quality...Quality has YOU!"
Yet we also read:
"...one is free to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality. One is
determined insofar as one is controlled by static patterns of value."
(inexact quotes)
>I'm not sure if you read it, but I proposed a solution for "I" that is
>along
>this discussion. Mystics say "I" doesn't exist because it is not something
>experienced. Materialists say "I" doesn't exist because they can not find
>it
>under a microscope. But an "external something" vs. direct experience
>duality
>puts the notion of "I" together.
Which post did you outline your solution in? I'd like to read it. You're
right, this concept does seem to unify (by going beyond - transcending) both
a mystic and a materialist objection to 'selfness'.
What I have difficulty with immediately - and this applies most especially
to Rog's views as I read them - is the concept of 'direct experience' being
before (and apart from?) subjects and objects (Rog) - or something other
than 'the external world" (Rob).
I can sort of grasp the idea, if 'direct experience' means 'DQ'. But this
leaves me with a couple of concerns:
1) Is there experience which is "not direct"? If so, what is it, in
logical or empirical terms?
2) If DQ = D(irect)E(xperience), then experience - the 'most real'
aspect of our selves - is conceptually unknown, undefinable, etc...
But certainly our experiences are quite definable - in terms of
value - and therefore conceptually known.
3) I just keep wanting to apply some "substantive" concept to 'direct'
experience. If anything, the word 'experience' has always implied
the existence of an experiencER and that which is experiencED.
4) Experience necessarily leads to individuation, as no-one will
argue about the uniqueness & inaccessibility of their experiences to
anyone else.
- Perhaps this is a linguistic tangle and someone can suggest a
better term for what you (& P.) are trying to convey by 'direct
experience'.
>When one assumes that there is a structure or "something" apart from
>experience,
>"I" becomes the collection of everything experienced!? When there is an
>assumption of a "you", a box of Cheerios, or what the hell ever, there
>immediately becomes a "me". My experiences. My thoughts. My feelings. My
>damn
>Cheerios!
>
>Get it?
Not the first sentence - can this be clarified? The second...yes, if what
you mean is that whenever language describes 'reality', or 'direct
experience', it must necessarily (perhaps due to bodvar's solaqi) divide
things up into "highlow", "goodbad", "blackwhite", "selfother", etc...
Pirsig surely is showing this to be an illusion, in step with much Oriental
philosophy. Quality has you, right?
But - if the "MOQ subscribes to empiricism", and I have never had the
experience of reality being "One, Undivided, Dynamic..." (in other words, if
I'm not enlightened), then I can't rightly give consent to that
doctrine...seeing as empiricism states that all knowledge comes from
experience. You might say I gain knowledge from others' experiences (mystics
from all times and places), but I have not yet convinced myself that they
all shared the same experience(s) - have you? If so, read R.C.Zahner -
"Concordant Discord" - especially in relation to hallucinogenic/psychoactive
plants/chemicals - he makes a pretty good case against the typical (perhaps
too wantingly quick) decision that Jesus and Lao Tzu, Bubba Free John and my
most recent excursion into psylocibin-wonderlands, etc... were conveying the
same message...
>I think this is important. Would you agree that we are sometimes too
>"objective" here? "Dynamic this... static that." We need to be more
>introspective and personal!
By 'here', do you mean this discussion group? If so, then no. I mean, all
the attempts at 'objectivity' in the world are in my opinion nothing but
subjective expressions of value anyways - not that there is anything wrong
with that. I would hope, and presume (here at least), that each individual
spends as much time personally introspecting on the moral consequences of
what he/she writes as possible. Don't forget that YOU are waking up tomorrow
morning with the ability to 'follow' DQ, or 'submit' to sq's...
What I do think is that all of us need to pull that classic pickle out of
our asses now and then and spray it with fungicide! Once thoroughly
cleansed, do send me a letter on a slice - addressed to the "Romantic
Platypi Association".
On the other hand, I really do hope that with every possible waking moment
your minds are directed towards understanding "...that O Gargi, by which
everything else is known..." (Upanishads...Chandogya?)
The unexamined life is not worth living, nor is the unexamined universe
worth evolving...
Concerning "Dynamic this, static that...", I really do think it is a
beautiful way of looking at Quality - except when 'DQ' is seen as
fundamentally prior to and other than 'sq'. I don't think this distinction
should be made, I think this whole 'direct experience', 'timelag',
'preintellectual cutting edge' business is a bad hangover from ZMM,
intellectually inferior to Lila in SOME ways (NOT all, as some might have
it.)
>Actually, you are right. I don't exist. Please disregard what was just
>said.
I will tell myself that my intellectual construction (Rob, computer,
internet, friendliness, light, colours...) informed me that said concept has
just negated itself to myself... heheh! Thanks for the intriguing reply. And
do tell me where to go to further understand your concept - "direct
experience & external world"...
Rich
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
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 - 16:03:09 BST