From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 14 2004 - 02:53:07 GMT
Scott and all MOQers:
Scott Roberts said:
I regard "pure experience" as something of a myth, but see below.
...The other answer is to assume that it is somehow meaningful to speak of
consciousness without an object and without a subject. Since this is how
Franklin Merrell-Wolff describes his mystical experience, I consider him
worth listening to on this question. If we accept this answer, then our
inability to think of consciousness except in S/O terms just means that we
are not finished in terms of the evolution of thinking. ...In my view, the
MOQ needs this sort of thinking to become coherent. It could be that what
Pirsig and James mean by "pure experience" is what Merrell-Wolff means by
"consciousness without S/O", so it just turns into a question of which term
one privileges,...
dmb says:
You're so close. Its frustrating to watch. Yes, of course Pirsig and
Merrell-Wolff are talking about the same thing. I'm amazed that you don't
quite see the connection. You seem to read all the right stuff, Scott, but
you read it so badly. Are you one of those geniuses who can hide his
dyslexia or what? But seriously, is there any meaningful difference between
Pirsig's pre-intellectual awareness and Wolff's consciousness without
subject and object? Are they not just different expessions of a unitary
experience? You bet they are! Coleridge's descriptions reminded me very much
of Pirsig peyote experience too. Behind the differences in emphasis and
such, it seems very clear to me that they and others are all talking about
the same thing. And these descriptions match my own experience too. I'd
never have thought to put it in terms of subjects and objects, but that's
just a matter of style.
"Pure experience cannot be called either physical or psychical: it logically
precedes this distinction." (Lila, 29)
"He thought it was probably the light that infants see when their world is
still fresh and whole, before consciousness differentiates it into
patterns." (Lila, 26)
The idea here is that immediate reality, the experience we have before
thoughts of subjects and objects or anything else emerges, is undivided. And
its not that subject/object thinking itself prevents us from seeing this. It
doesn't matter how well such things evolve, division is an inherent part of
language and thought as such. Any metaphysics will divide the undivided and
there's no getting around it. The static/Dynamic split divides reality too.
That's why we say DQ is beyond definition and yet we know it from
experience. Its beyond word and thoughts, yet it is something we can
experience and it something that can lead us to profound changes in the way
we look at the world and respond to life.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 14 2004 - 03:09:37 GMT