Hey Gang: Just a few words in reply, you know, they'll be preceded by my
name in brackets, at least I hope it appears that way on your screen.
> ROGER RESTATES PLATT'S TAKE ON DAVID B.s
> TAKE ON REALITY (and has fun on the way)
>
> It seems talking directly to David is not getting us closer, so I
> thought it
> might be healthier to restate my understanding of DB's position using
> Platt's summary.
>
[David Buchanan] Are you saying direct conversations with me
cause illness? : -)
> PLATT:
> I've been reading the exchanges between Roger and David with
> interest. Seems their basic disagreement concerns Pirsig's
> definition of (to use Roger's words) "base reality."
>
[David Buchanan] Well, I guess its my poor communication
skills. But I did say explicitly, and several times, that MAIN POINT and
MAIN OBJECTION has to do with intellectual static patterns and their
mediation through the four levels. Its pretty bad when we can't even
agree what were talking about.
> ROG:
> I agree, but I borrowed the phrase from Mr P.
>
> PLATT:
> Roger seems to say that intellectual patterns are not base reality
> while David claims they are.
>
[David Buchanan] Uh, Oh. I didn't intent to say that
intellectual patterns are "base reality" and I don't think its true.
Wonder how you got that impression? I'm not even sure what it means, let
alone agree with it.
In other contexts, I've refered to DQ as "the ground of being".
So to say DQ is base reality ok.
> ROG:
> Nope. I would say that it would be more accurate to say that I
> believe DQ (or Direct Experience) is Base Reality, and that David
> believes that there is a base reality other than DQ or Direct
> Experience. In This Base Reality of David's, the intellect is one
> fourth of reality along with the other 3 value levels that are really
> "out there". David any comments?
>
[David Buchanan] Trying to tempt me with a SOM trap, eh?
Really "out there", eh? We can step around that pit-fall. Yes. I've been
saying that the intellect is one fourth of static quality, that is one
of the four levels, and I wouldn't say the other 3 are "out there" so
much much as they are "in there". This is very much related to the
mediation issue too. As I've been saying, our intellectual descriptions
(observations) must be "filtered" thru the other layers, all of which
are within us. Microcosm is a pretty good word for this idea.
> Oh, and David, if it is really "out there," is it labeled? [ie stamped
> with
> little tags "I am a rabbit,' and "I am the force of gravity?" Or
> perhaps "Hi
> my name is redwing seagull # 653427619554...fly me?"
>
[David Buchanan] Well, our intellect does label stuff. That
which we formerly refered to as "substance" has been re-labeled
inorganic static patterns of quality, for example. And we can imagine it
in other ways too. But I think that is just about the evolution of our
intellectual models about that which is labeled. Again, I think there
are two "things", and even though we can't know the ultimate truth
about these labeled things, I don't doubt its reality. And the test of
truth in these matters is one of Pragmatism. Does the model work? That's
the question. Is it useful? I think its perfectly legitimate, especially
in the MOQ, to accept the limits of the intellect, without throwing it
way in frustration.
> PLATT:
> Since intellectual patterns are directly experienced like
> base reality, one can easily side with David.
>
[David Buchanan] I've been saying the opposite, intellect is
indirect and mediated thru all the levels.
> Rog
> PS -- I am just having fun. I seriously feel David's belief is very
> high in
> quality. Many truths and all......
>
[David Buchanan] Thanks for your time.
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 - 16:03:10 BST