Hi Roger, David and group:
ROGER:
Silly, silly boy. Sq does not get counted as Direct Experience.
PLATT:
Oh, I see. Reading that static sentence is not a direct experience.
The direct experience is perceiving static marks on a screen. No,
that can’t be because anything static doesn’t count as direct
experience and thus isn’t really real. Hmmm, so how can I read a
basically unreal sentence?
ROGER:
SQ is derived from DE in the Quality Event.
PLATT:
Now I get it. I have direct experience of a blurry meaningless
something called base reality when all of a sudden out of the blue
comes a "Quality Event” (the result of something going “click” in my
brain no doubt) whereby the blurry something is recognized as
static marks on a screen, the static marks are recognized as words,
the static words are recognized as a static sentence, and the static
sentence is recognized as saying a static something. Isn't that a
rather round about way of reading what you’ve written? (Is this the
"mediation” that David talks about?)
ROGER:
I of course agree that sq is essential to reality as we know it. In fact
it is reality as we know it.
PLATT:
And a good thing, too. That blurry meaningless something in Dq
base reality could be an angry bear
ROGER:
But reality as we know it is “ghosts.”
PLATT:
Tell that to the bear.
ROGER:
But reality as we know it. . .
PLATT:
“Reality as we know it." Hmmm. Is there a reality as we don’t know
it? If there is, how do we know it? If I thought for a minute that
Pirsig’s “Quality” consisted of reality (base or otherwise) as we
don’t know it, I would have thrown Lila in the circular file long ago.
Just having fun, Rog. Playing devil's advocate and demonstrating
that we’ve got a long way to go to reach agreement on what the
MOQ means, much less what each of us means when we say
something about it. Apparently I've misinterpreted you and David
completely. But that's probably as it must be given my level of
intelligence and any new theory. After all, most people like me still
have only a vague idea of what Einstein's theory of relativity is all
about even though that “new” view of reality has been around for
over 50 years.
Just one question for both of you. If I say:
"Quality (morality) is the primary reality of the world," and
"Static and Dynamic is the basic division of reality.”
would you say I accurately reflect Pirsig's initial metaphysical
premises? (No tricks. This is what Pirsig says on pages 111, Chap.
7 and 133, Chap. 9 respectively.)
If you answer “Yes” it seems to me that it follows that BOTH DQ and
SQ are PRIMARY REALITY in the MOQ even though Pirsig appears
to contradict himself by writing on page 428, Chap. 30:
"The solution is to dissolve all static patterns, both sane and insane,
and find the base of reality, Dynamic Quality, that is independent of
all of them."
I gather Roger got his "base of reality" idea from this sentence
(perhaps subliminally).
My problem is the meaning of words "primary" and "base." To me
they are synonymous and thus the above contradiction. Can either
of you (or anyone) help me out on this? If I can get the basic
premises of the MOQ straight in my mind, and if we can get some
agreement on them, then maybe we can move the peg of mutual
understanding forward a few paces. (-:
Platt
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