What worries me is that all of this discussion could have been made without
Pirsig's theory too. All you are arguing about is Reality vs. Observation
period. Not about MoQ.
MoQ is a different set of Metaphysics and it should be built in order to see
how it functions. These little building stones are formulated experiences of
quality, SPQ, static patterns of quality. So please if someone here cares to
shift from our SOM to MoQ, please do, but it requires a shift.
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Balestra <Balestra@ibmail.nl>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Montag, 16. August 1999 02:59
Subject: RE: MD Reality and observation
> Dear Rog, Rich, David, Platt, Jamie?, Avid, and other observers of
Reality,
>
> After starting this thead I couldn't contribute due to said reasons.
> I however did follow it with curiousity and I like much of the input.
> Funny thing is that I didn't start with words about my perspective on the
> subject, but I tried to formulate a good question. This is something I
> miss reading the contributions of late. There seems to be disagreement
> where there aren't really opposite views (at least I don't see them).
> Formulating a good question, or asking ourselves 'how can I descibe
> what it is we disagree about?' IMO can improve our discussion.
>
> Until now I haven't seen posts that refute my statement that the Reality-
> debate among us members boils down to what individual
> members think deserves the term 'Reality'. For me seeing this has helped
> understand the way others used terms like 'Experience', 'DQ', 'Reality'
etc.
>
> 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.
>
> For me the question remains however what Pirsig's take on this is. After
> reading Subjects, Objects, Data and Values again, I couldn't go around the
> fact that Pirsig refers to Reality as primarily human-experience based.
> He writes:
> "The Metaphysics of Quality agrees with scientific realism that these
> inorganic patterns are completely real, and there is no reason that box
> shouldn't be there, but it says that this reality is ulimately a deduction
> made in the first months of an infant's life and supported by the culture
> in which the infant grows up."
>
> 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.
>
> Somehow this strikes me as incomplete. What I miss most is a term for the
> ontologically speaking ever more complex balance of DQ and SQ. A term for
> the depth or convergence in Reality.
>
> Have to stop, too confused right now. What do you think?
>
> A last thing about what Rich wrote:
> [...] "Quality is One, Undivided"
> This means that any distinction between "static" and "dynamic" is
ultimately
> false, though useful. Things and thoughts (reality) this way is MORE OR
LESS
> Dynamic, or static (-stable-), if you like?
> Quality as shades, degrees, a continuous spectrum... rather than a
> dualism. Does this sound good?
>
> Beautiful Rich!!! Only thing I want to change is that I wouldn't say that
"any distinction
> between "static" and "dynamic" is ultimately FALSE", but LESS TRUE or LESS
REAL.
> In a non-MoQ view, something is either True or not-True, Real or not-Real.
For me
> epistemologic Reality in more like an optimum. To put it in a graph it
would resemble a
> Gaussian-diagram. Do you know what I mean?
>
> Dtchgrtings,
> Walter
>
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