From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 17 2005 - 18:22:18 GMT
Hi dmb, Matt, Paul, and all MOQers.
This (dmb's thoughts) is very close to what I am thinking (by thinking, I
mean not knowing, but searching).
We are a part of it -- Quality. And, how much of Quality we are able to
apprehend is a factor of the development of our small self through cultural
and scientific evolution, and the ability to suspend our cultural and
scientific beliefs.
Considering Socrates, it was the cultural norm to believe in gods;
questioning this belief is what sent him to his death. What Socrates saw as
'Devine intervention' may have been a confusion as to how he could have
realized the falsity in the mythos of the day. Where Socrates may have fit
in with the teachings of Zen is that this 'Devine intervention' was revealed
to him through 'Fits of abstraction' such as meditating. These fits of
abstraction didn't seem to come from a desire to know, or a desire for
devine intervention, but possibly more from a need of isolation from the
complication of outside forces such as questioning from his peers, and
demands of everyday life.
To me it fits. Socrates didn't claim to 'Know.' In fact, Socrates claimed to
know nothing. As he discovered, neither did those who did claim to know.
A more modern statement of this sort which I can't point to the originator
would be; "It is not what you don't know that hurts; it is what you think
you know but don't."
It is not a matter of whether we are born dumb as an ape and learn all we
know as we go along, or whether this knowledge is somehow already built into
our psyche, or evolution of a more advanced being that answers the
questions. It may be more a matter of realizing that we do not have the
answers through current cultural or scientific ideas. Both the cultural and
scientific advancements to date are primitive in comparison to the cultural
and scientific ideas of tomorrow.
Arête was a more primitive word for Quality, as it was not as encompassing.
I'm not saying Quality resides in the individual. What I am saying is the
individual advances more toward Quality. Each generation advances more
toward Quality. But, at least to me, it seems we do not learn this Quality;
we evolve toward it. As DQ works its way into the static patterns, the
static static patterns are dropped from our psyche, and we are more open
toward allowing DQ into our nature. What we keep from each generation that
went before us is a selection of what was left from the understanding of
each generation that went before us. How open to DQ each generation is may
be the determining factor to whether we are in a period of enlightenment or
a more static dark period.
It is my more simple belief that we are entering a period of enlightenment
that will dwarf all periods of enlightenment of the past, and hanging on to
the discoveries of the past is just a way to become more static in your
nature. Socrates idea of devine intervention was DQ. This DQ has become a
part of the static patterns that are built into us. If we stick to the DQ of
Socrates, then there is no hope for advancement. Socrates, nor any other
philosopher of the past has the ability to advance our own DQ. The DQ that
was high Quality, is now a part of our static Quality; the DQ that wasn't is
not. Our ignorance of DQ, and acceptance of DQ that wasn't into our static
Quality, is simply a desire to hold onto the static patterns of the past. We
already know DQ; we just choose not to recognize it when we see it.
Where Socrates may have been more dynamic than anyone since may have been in
his attitude toward knowledge; "I may be the wisest man on earth, as I know
I know nothing." (paraphrased)
Wolff (thanks for the nickname; I accept it:)
>From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: "'moq_discuss@moq.org'" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: MD Where do ideas reside?
>Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:39:26 -0700
>
>Chin, Matt, Paul and all MOQers:
>
>Chin less-than-absolutely suggested:
>........................we are born with an innate understanding built up
>from previous fathers and mothers and of fathers and mothers of these
>fathers and mothers. In this we hold an inherent understanding which we
>could build upon without the need of understanding prior philosophical
>concepts or philosophical rules of engagement other than hints to remember
>what we already know.
>
>dmb replies:
>Hmmm. I don't know. And by that I mean that I'm skeptical AND I really
>don't
>know. Its not clear to me, but want to speculate anyway because it might be
>fun. If Chin is saying what I think he is, he's talking about the premise
>behind the Socratic method of questioning. We already know everything on
>some level and all we need to make that knowledge conscious is the right
>questions. These questions will jogg our memories, so to speak, and make
>that knowledge explicit. It also occurs to me that "latent" might be a
>better word for that "forgotten" knowledge.
>
>Maybe its just a matter of absorbing the culture and its concepts as we
>mature. Maybe common sense is built upon the wisdom of the past and so we
>all inherent a kind of warmed-over and unexamined collection of what used
>to
>be fabulous new ideas. And this is certainly part of the picture, at least.
>I'm sure we could take a page from anyone's book and discover that ideas
>and
>assuptions there are derived from very explicit historical sources that the
>author is completely unaware of. And I don't just mean literal authors. The
>same thing would be apparent in the utterances of an illiterate cowboy.
>
>I also get the impression that false ideas can persist this way for
>centuries and Pirsig's examination of "substance", I think, is an attempt
>to
>show exactly that. We can see these ideas evolve too. RHT and all its
>descendents is a good example of how ideas can even seem to have children
>as
>they are passed along. Or, in the case of creationism, we can see how
>unsuccessful ideas will mutate in order to survive. So now we have
>"intelligent design" instead. But I also get the feeling that there is also
>something SOM and not quite right about the idea of passing philosophies
>around as if they were genes.
>
>There is a Pirsigism that may be apt at this point. I forget exactly how he
>says it, but basically wants to dispel the notion that you have static
>pattens. Rather, he says, static patterns have you. This goes along with
>the
>idea that there is no self independent of the static patterns. You ARE the
>patterns. Our worldview is such that we imagine the subjective mind filling
>itself with knowledge and the subjective mind creating new knowledge, but
>Pirsig's comments turns that on its head in a rather strange way. I mean,
>if
>the self is a fiction, then who is forgetting and remembering? Who is
>creating new ideas? Can it be the subjective self if the subjective self
>itself is an idea? No. This stuff makes my brain hurt just trying to think
>about it, but its pretty clear that intellectual creativity is a response
>to
>Dynamic Quality...
>
>"Poincaré had been working on a puzzle of his own. His judgment that the
>scientist selects facts, hypotheses and axioms on the basis of harmony,
>also left the rough serrated edge of a puzzle incomplete. To leave the
>impression in the scientific world that the source of all scientific
>reality is merely a subjective, capricious harmony is to solve problems
>of epistemology while leaving an unfinished edge at the border of
>metaphysics that makes the epistemology unacceptable.
>
>But we know from Phædrus' metaphysics that the harmony Poincaré talked
>about is not subjective. It is the source of subjects and objects and
>exists in an anterior relationship to them. It is not capricious, it is
>the force that opposes capriciousness; the ordering principle of all
>scientific and mathematical thought which destroys capriciousness, and
>without which no scientific thought can proceed." [ZMM Ch22]
>
>It must be the same way with social level static patterns. The ordering
>principle, the non-subjective harmony Ponciare talked about, produces
>static
>patterns in its wake on all levels, no? And I think this is one of the
>major
>distinctions between Pirsig's view and the postmodern view that our reality
>is a linguistic construction. Because the underlying metaphysical
>assumptions are still largely unchanged, the postmodenist sees the
>construction process in terms of convienience and usefulness, as
>essentially
>arbitrary and judges their value accordingly. But in Pirsig's view we get a
>radically different idea. If the implication of his epistemology is what I
>think it is, then all of creation is a manifestation of the same ordering
>principle. And I think that the "intelligent designers" have discovered
>this
>principle without quite having the metaphysical concepts to deal with it. I
>think this is what the mystics say, that all things are a manifestion of
>the
>One. And if our deepest Self, our deepest identity is that One. The small
>self, the one we think we are, is a manifestion of our true Self. And the
>whole world is a manifestation of that ultimate Self.
>
>So if you ever felt as if you knew a thing before it was taught maybe its
>because you did. Its not the kind of onmiscience we might normally imagine.
>Its not like we all have a PhD in everything but smoked too much dope and
>forgot it all. But I think in a sense DQ doesn't really care if an idea
>seems to be 10,000 years old to us or if from our perspective it hasn't
>even
>been invented yet, because time and evolution is just another one of those
>ideas. As far as DQ is concerned, I guess, there is no time and everything
>that ever was or ever could be, now is. And we know it, cause we are it.
>
>See what I mean about speculation? Know I don't .mmmH
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
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 : Mon Jan 17 2005 - 19:20:54 GMT