From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Thu Feb 10 2005 - 21:58:20 GMT
Marsha,
Marsha: Your saying that the formless can be called Quality, Intellect, Consciousness, Godhead, Emptiness and possibly Will. And the formless cannot be described because it is that which makes up form, so these words should stand without definition. Is that right?
Scott:
The formless cannot be described or defined because it is formless, so I misspoke to say "because it is that which makes up form". Otherwise, yes.
Scott said:
But if we shift to considering form (things, events, patterns), then we can say of each event, etc. that there is consciousness, there is value, and there is intellect. But again, one cannot say of the consciousness (or value, or intellect) what it is in terms of something else, so there is no way to *define* consciousness (or value or intellect) as it shows up in form. We can only use other words that are equally undefinable (e.g., awareness, meaning, reason). But are there three things or one? I say again there is just one. There is not one part of an event that is its value, and another that is its intellect, or a third that is consciousness. So how is it that we have these three words? I don't know. All I know is that I don't know how to distinguish them except by using other words that are just as in need of distinguishing. But it is an interesting thing to think about.
Marsha: In the realm of form (things, events, patterns) three things are present: intellect, consciousness and value. (Not quality? You've substituted value for quality. They can have different meanings. Are you sure you want to change quality to value?) And you've added other words: awareness, meaning and reason. You've further stated that in the realm of forms all these words, too, are undefinable. And finally you state that these three (six) words are describing one thing, event or pattern. Are you saying because they are describing one thing, event or pattern (form), they have the same meaning. What exactly are you saying?
Scott:
First, it is Pirsig who uses quality and value interchangeably, and I'm following along on that. Second, I did not say that these words "describe" one thing, event or pattern. I did say "as they show up in form", but even this is misleading. As to their being undefinable, you're welcome to try to define them. I think, though, that you won't be able to without using some other word that amounts to being a synonym of the first. Lastly, I don't know how to make it more exact.
Marsha said:
While it might be interesting to think about, in my opinion it doesn't follow that you have enough clarity of thought to attack MOQ.
Scott:
Or it could be that the clarity of the MOQ exists by over-simplification.
Marsha said:
You did state, "My concern is that the MOQ's philosophy of mysticism has flaws. There are better philosophies of mysticism. Further, I think that these flaws lead the MOQ to a thoroughly inadequate view of Intellect." In your theory aren't Quality and Intellect interchangeable? Isn't intellect, in your theory, a word without definition?
Scott:
I would not say that Quality and Intellect are readily interchangeable. They have different connotations. A rough analogy might be to electricity and magnetism. They are one thing, but each is used to refer to different situations. In the case of Quality and Intellect, one thinks of quality on viewing a beautiful sunset, and thinks of intellect on figuring out a mathematical proof. But for a sunset to be judged beautiful requires moving through various systems of static patterns of value (the systems of color and shape, for example), and that movement is intellect (recognizing that a particular is an instance of a pattern, for instance). Figuring out a mathematical proof involves selection of possible paths, which Pirsig (following Poincare) rightly points out is a mark of quality.
What Philosophy of Mysticism do you prefer??
Scott:
The sort I have been vainly trying to elucidate. It is an attempt to amalgamate the philosophies of various others, notably the Heart Sutra (the source of "form is formlessness, formlessness is form"), Franklin Merrell-Wolff, Owen Barfield, Georg Kuhlewind, Robert Magliola (as commentator on Nagarjuna).
- 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 : Thu Feb 10 2005 - 22:36:11 GMT