Re: MD Empiricism

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Nov 20 2004 - 22:08:26 GMT

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD People and Value in the MOQ"

    Chin,

    What I am saying is that it is meaningless to talk about "just value". Rather, value always occurs in a context, even as it is the power that creates that context. However we may divide up reality is, as Pirsig says, contingent, but there must be some distinguishing or there is no value, there is just pure undifferentiated nothingness. But form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form. (In a letter to someone, I forget who, Pirsig notes that Quality, as used in the MOQ, is just another name for what Buddhists call Emptiness).

    - Scott

    ----- Original Message -----
    From:
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Sent: 11/20/2004 1:15:45 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Empiricism

    In a message dated 11/20/04 2:00:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, jse885@earthlink.net writes:
    In ZAMM, after realizing that Quality is neither subjective nor objective,
    he goes on to realize that Quality produces both subject and object. Of
    course, we can understand the cut in other ways, notably as DQ/SQ. But
    unless it cuts in some way or other, it is meaningless.

    Hi all. I hate to interrupt this excellent discussion, but maybe you could explain what this means for me.

    From "ZEN;"

    <Snip>
    What is essential to understand at this point is that until now there was no such thing as mind and matter, subject and object, form and substance. Those divisions are just dialectical inventions that came later. The modern mind sometimes tends to balk at the thought of these dichotomies being inventions and says, "Well, the divisions were there for the Greeks to discover," and you have to say, "Where were they? Point to them!" And the modern mind gets a little confused and wonders what this is all about anyway, and still believes the divisions were there.

    But they weren't, as Phaedrus said. They are just ghosts, immortal gods of the modern mythos which appear to us to be real because we are in that mythos. But in reality they are just as much an artistic creation as the anthropomorphic Gods they replaced.
    </Snip>

    Thanks for any consideration.

    Chin

    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 : Sat Nov 20 2004 - 22:39:09 GMT