At 11:58 PM -0600 11/15/99, Dan Glover wrote:
[jc]
>> It seems sort of arrogant and defeatist at the same time to say "It's all
>> unknowable". I mean how could you know that?
>
[Dan]
>Hi jc
>
>I beguile you to use correct quotes, if you wish to quote others. I did
>not write "it's all unknowable", rather it is my belief we will never
>understand nature of reality/self.
Hi Dan and thanks for the interaction.
I think I see the trouble in the above sentence... I didn't intend to quote
you when I said, "it's all unknowable" - I'm not college educated and can
sometime trip myself up on the use of punctuation. The """ is sometimes
ambiguous. For instance, it can be used as a meta-pointer when we're
talking about the word or phrase itself rather than using the word as a
normal part of a sentence and it was in that regard that I used it -
perhaps wrongly. I'm hazy on exact proper usage. I use the convention of
placing ">" before the quotes of others and usually reserve quote marks for
my own use within my own contributions.
But I can certainly see how that was unclear in the above and thank you for
helping me to see that.
>This isn't meant as an "arrogant"
>statement and I do not consider my point of view "defeatist".
And on further reflection, "arrogant" was definitely a poor choice of
words. For while it is possible to pronounce "It's all unknowable" in an
arrogant fashion, does that it follow that you whom I'm addressing are
guilty of this? Of course not. I did couch this term with "seems" but
still it has derogatory connatation that probably don't belong. After all,
from the very fact that you are here sharing this pursuit of deeper
understanding I can guess that you are probably a very high quality person
and not arrogant at all. Arrogant people don't like being challenged and
this is challenging forum!
But with that cleared up, I still maintain that the exact quote I disagree
with is faulty.
Maybe instead of being arrogant yourself you are the victim of arrogance.
Maybe Somebody arrogantly pronounced to you that:
>we will (n)ever understand nature
>of reality or nature of self
and ever since the idea has got stuck in your head, stopping you from
trying a little harder?
Who did this to you?
>Pirsig
>discusses along these same lines when he compares a hand full of sand on
>a
>beach as all we can ever know of this immensity we call reality.
The guilty party! So I'll take issue with the man himself. But first I'd
have to dig up my old issue of ZAMM, but I think I loaned the last one out
so I'll have to do my best from memory... hmmm... I believe he was talking
about the senses, no? Consciousnous - understanding - is far different
from assimilating sensory stimuli. Patterns of values and values of
patterns have the ability to hold whole worlds in a cup of sand. What the
heck is silicon made of? But I digress...
I make the simple assertion that the statement "Reality in its Totallity is
unknowable" is mere conjecture and very non-logical and philosophically
weak and unfit of a place within the MOQ. Is the point conceded or
challenged?
>So. My
>statement is not "it's all unknowable" but rather: Totality, all which
>we
>are capable of placing value on, is merely a hand full of sand on an
>endless beach.
Remember, all this is only an allegory ;-)
(and technically, all we are capable of placing value on is always all
there ever is)
(snip)
>
>jc, my attributed quote is in response to what I see as DMB's static
>quality outlook upon our examination of morals in Pirsig's MOQ.
I could observe some signs of that, sure. But I usually prefer to focus on
the words and let the personalities blur. But re-reading David's post I
have to say I agree with most of what he said and disagree with your main
points. It appears to me that you go right to the heart of the matter in
your reply:
>Pirsig
>does not state that reality is composed of different kinds of morality,
>but that reality IS morality. Pirsig's MOQ is not concerned with truth
>but Quality.
>
>Dan
Before I begin, I want you to know this is not a personal attack, it's a
literal
one. Well not "literally" literal but you know what I mean;)
Also, as long as we're blurring the personality-focus, let's turn up the
blur factor on our beloved RMP - whom I revere like today's true prophet
but neverthess, I'd rather not get into whether he was saying this or
you've misunderstood him or whatever. Let's focus on the ideas alone.
Assertion 1:
Quality and morality are
identical.
Assertion 2:
Quality and Truth are different
Proof 1:
Quality has to be understood in the context of MoQ of course, the
underlying pattern of values in which all is contained. But what is meant
by morality?
Morality is always is within the context of a culture. You could easily
broaden this to include non-human patterns and call them "cultures" of a
sort, and show how the rules in which they operate are therefore a kind of
morality. The laws of cause and effect on a non-organic pattern. This is
stretching the term since morality also has the connotation of choice - but
I won't argue that point for fear of stepping on quantonic toes. But even
concedeing so, that morality occurs on all levels, this morality is always
within a specific context of that level and thus a virtually infinite
species of morality.
There's only one Quality.
Thus Quality and morality are completely different.
Proof 2:
Truth. What is truth? Great question, hard to answer. Let's consider a
simple statement: fire burns. Is that statement true? Let's test it.
I'll stick my hand in this flame. Ouch. Yes, fire does burn. How do I
know that statement is true?
Because I experienced a lower quality condition when I disbelieved the truth.
When you examine it, you find that Truth is simply that which leads to
Quality. The two terms are inseperable.
The most elegant refutation I could give isn't original with me, but it
goes like this: Truth is beauty and beauty truth. This is all we know and
all we need to know.
It should be obvious that he's talking about Quality. Thus:
Quality and Truth are identical.
-----------------
I apologize to any professional logicians out there over my sloppy use of
the term "proof", and of course for all my silly sophist tricks - appeal to
authority, etc - and I'd welcome any input or refinement, but I think with
some work I could make good arguments for either of my points.
jc
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 - 16:03:14 BST