ROGER’S DAILY QUOTA OF REALITY
Let me spell out my position succinctly.
1) DQ is everyday Direct Experience. RMP probably states this a dozen times.
By Direct
Experience, we mean presubject and preobject and preconceptual. Since our
entire
universe is composed of this Experience, and by definition it is not not
“human
experience” (it is presubject), there is no need to “extend it” to chairs and
photons. It is
already the source of all subjects and objects.
2) Sq is objectified and subjectified patterns. These are conceptual models
that are our
best representation of preconceptual experience. DQ is to the experience of
sound as sq
is to the song , the singer and the audience.
Now some comments to y’all.
PLATT:
It’s my impression that the objections Roger and David raise were
answered by Pirsig in his paper, SUBJECTS, OBJECTS, DATA
AND VALUES. He explained how the MOQ relates to the
Copenhagen Interpretation (it fits) and fused the philosophy of
science with the MOQ rather well I thought. In fact, wasn’t the
purpose of the paper to close the metaphysical gap between
science and the humanities and to show there wasn't much
difference between physics and metaphysics?
ROGER:
I think it shows that physics does not disagree with the MOQ, and that it
actually supports
the MOQ world view more than classical, positivist views.
WALTER
For instance, someone who sees human reality as sublimated from
'the ultimate or nondualistic or whateveryouwannacallit Reality', uses and
refers to experience, when talking about atoms or trees as well as when
talking about human experience (David, me, Rich?).
Someone who refers to Reality only as what we can know/experience as
humans or moreover "what one experiences this instant" (Platt, Rog), uses
the term Experience subsequently in a different sence. The way we solve this
"babel"
is coming up with subterms like "non-dualistic" and "ultimate". I say the
presuppositions we individualy use are different, but in the end we're not
contradicting eachother on the metaphysical view.
ROGER:
Direct Experience is pre-tree, pre-atom, pre-person. But clearly it comprises
all.
WALTER:
Subsequently everything outside this "Reality" is the conceptualy unknown
or DQ. The more I think about this, the more I see that the term DQ has
become a reservoir of different concepts. It is everything
unknown/unexperienced.
It is "the cutting edge of Reality". It is what static patterns in the
evolutionary
scheme are migrating towards. In Lila Pirsig also talkes about the dynamic
choices of the carbon atom without it being a deduction made in the first
months
of an infant's life.
ROGER:
I agree that DQ can be overbroadened to include POTENTIAL, THE UNKNOWN, THE
FUTURE, EVOLUTIONARY GOALS, and WHO REALLY SHOT JFK?
DAVID:
Walter, I do try to describe what I mean, but coming up with a solid
definition of "reality" is a post all by itself. Not that it isn't a
good idea.
ROGER:
Damn!! I thought that is what we have been arguing on for the past two
months!
DAVID:
Roger's most recent post seems to jump back and forth between
intellectual and mystical types of perceptions and confuses them in ways
I really can't untangle.Intellectual perceptions are embedded in and mediated
by each of
the levels. Mystical experieces are Dynamic, direct and immediate awareness.
That's another reason I like the word "mediated" Its the opposite of
"immediate", which simply means "not mediated". See? DQ is direct
experience, right? This direct experience is un-mediated by static
patterns. I think you've come to think of "immediate" as simply meaning
"right now". But in this context it means something more like naked or
unfiltered. See what I mean? Not to get too technical on you, but DQ is
outside of time, beyond those static categories and so "right now"
becomes meaningless.
ROGER:
DQ is unveiled, unfiltered, eternal present.
DAVID [Summarizing Roger’s view]:
1)DQ creates all static patterns. (the world)
2)All static pattterns can be mapped by intellectual concepts.(ideas about
the world) THEREFORE:
3)All static patterns are nothing but intellectual concepts? (The world is
nothing but ideas about the world.)
ROGER:
Nice attempt. I think I would state it as such:
1) DQ is Direct Experience
2) Reality is composed of Direct Experience.
3) Conceptualizing is one such experience. Conceptualizing is the experience
of building
models of ourselves and our world. Conceptualizing builds static, shallow
(though
extremely useful) patterns out of dynamic prepatterned reality.
4) The conceptualized, patterned world is a model built from the ultimate
reality of DQ.
DAVID:
But in my view the are ideas are a part of the world. DQ is engaged in
an eternal dance with the world, but is, unlike the world, Dynamic and
not map-able, and can not be percieved by the intellect. All we can do
is point to it and witness the fruit of it, which is the world, all
subjects and objects.
DQ isn't 24/7, its eternal and infinite.
ROGER:
Read my position above. We are pretty damn close.
TOM:
To attempt to create a static 'analytical tool' around it is misguided in
my opinion.
The Mysterium Conjunctionis of Jung, Whom I rever as much as Pirsig, can
not be achieved by
Analyse but must be experienced, and in the end that is , must be , and
forever will be,
a mystical event, existential, and 'religious'.
ROGER:
Agreed. I believe we eventually have to leap off our intellectual models.
This is best done
off-line though. By the way, Einstein described the advance of science as a
mystical event.
Ta-ta for now,
Roger
“The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for
scientific research.”
[Einstein]
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