From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Jan 11 2005 - 00:47:48 GMT
Mark,
> In an earlier post I asked a question about corrective lenses, which
> I believe is getting at the same problem. If we agree that our
> visual sense data is improved (made more valuable) by wearing
> glasses, then what is the relationship between our eyes, the glasses,
> and DQ? If DQ creates the sense data, what is being corrected by our
> corrective lenses? If DQ is pre-selecting data based on value, then
> it seems that DQ is able to get a little help.
>
> scott:
> This can be -- not understood, but at least addressed -- by treating
> Reality as that which *creates reality by making distinctions*. All
> such small-r reality is impermanent, of course. But, the one is (and
> is not) the other. Your (and Pirsig's) philosophy just divides them.
>
> <snip>
>
> Yes, this is a persistent blind spot among people who talk about
> mysticism. It is rightfully aware that no symbol is the Reality, but
> misses that Reality consists of the continual creation and
> destruction of symbols.
>
>
> msh says:
> But this doesn't really answer the question either; it just pushes it
> further up the ontological ladder. For Scott, that which *creates
> reality by making distinctions* is Consciousness, with a capital C.
> Saying that Quality is Conscious, that it creates and destroys
> symbols, tells us nothing about how and why. It doesn't offer a
> mechanism or suggest a relationship. You're just giving the Magician
> a different name.
My response (which has no authority behind it -- it just makes a little
more sense to me) is that Consciousness is not some thing which decides to
create this or that. Rather, Consciousness *is* the creating of this or
that, and the perception of the creations, which are not, or not
necessarily, two separate processes.
That bad eyes get created may just mean that Consciousness is not perfect,
or that there are wheels within wheels. There are esoteric answers, but
these cannot be demonstrated, and are not going to convince anyone that
isn't sympathetic to esotericism. And there is no getting around that any
story that attempts to explain (justify, or excuse) suffering is going to
sound callous to those who are suffering. All one can say, I think, is that
mystics tend to accept the fact of suffering, that is, it doesn't stop them
from calling Reality Good.
- Scott
- Scott
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 : Tue Jan 11 2005 - 01:25:15 GMT