Re: MD Primary Reality

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Jun 09 2005 - 19:47:24 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Primary Reality"

    Ham and All.

    You said 8 June

    > According to Paul, mind is an organ that collects belief systems for
    > which we need a special language and approval by consensus. But how
    > do we arrive at consensus without individual cognizance? He allows
    > that reason may be associated with mind but that it's "just an
    > acquired skill of using symbols and rules." So where is individual
    > awareness in this collective belief system? The phrase "idiosyncrasy
    > in one's beliefs" is about as close as he comes to defining
    > consciousness.

    How Paul sees mind and its "innards" has little to do with the
    MOQ that doesn't contain any mind. The static intellectual level
    however is the Subject/Object divide and has spawned a welter
    of other dualisms including the mind/matter one. Thus "mind"
    appears as the subjective half of intellect. This original insight of
    Phaedrus of ZMM is the SOL interpretation.

    > Now we have Matt admitting his admiration for this incomprehensible
    > Pirsig quote (before proceeding to tear it apart):

    Hark, hark ;-)

    > It's clear to me that when we talk about history or evolution it is
    > assumed that we are discussing experience in the physical world of
    > time and space. Pirsig knows this, Matt knows this, Paul knows this,
    > even I know this. So why obfuscate the issue by challenging the
    > sequence of events -- or the fact that they occurred at all?

    The physical world of time and space - as different from an inner
    world - is the intellectual level (stripped of its metaphysical 'M'
    that is!) but this does not make the said physical world an idea as
    little as the psychic world is an idea.

    > Apparently you folks are so intimidated by the scourge of SOM that you
    > can't allow even the concept of a material reality prior to human
    > experience.

    Some qualifications are necessary however. Because the MOQ
    has taken over the metaphysical 'M' from SOM its levels are
    patterns of Quality. This does not change a thing until one begins
    to analyze things metaphysically. No reading changes (as Pirsig
    says) be it inorganic patterns of value or physical matter that is
    studied. This goes for the next two levels also, but when it comes
    to intellect metaphysics enters. Even if dictionaries define
    intellect as the ability to distinguish between what's subjective
    (i.e: in accordance with the SOL) we automatically invokes MIND.

    And here is the source of all ills. In spite of his genius Pirsig
    wandered into this mind "trap". He has later "recanted" this
    blunder, but it seems in vain, Paul tries to explain things from
    the initial definition of intellect as the realm of thoughts or ideas,
    something that results in these logic acrobatics.

    > That's ironic because, to people like me, the MoQ's major
    > shortcoming is its failure to acknowledge a transcendent reality! At
    > least I regard primary reality as immutable -- which means that we
    > can't assume that Absolute Essence can be applied to the finite world
    > any more than that finite descriptions can be applied to Essence.
     
    "Transcendent reality" is a reality behind ... is that what you
    mean? I better wait for your answer here before proceeding, but if
    it is, it is very much acknowledged by the MOQ by its Dynamic
    Quality, but let me hear you out.

    > It would appear that you're all stuck somewhere in the middle with Mr.
    > Pirsig's philosophy. Its reality is neither pragmatic nor idealistic.

    I don't feel stuck at the all. The last part I agree with however.

    > Perhaps Paul had good reason to circle around this topic: as he seemed
    > to be telling me, the truth may be that primary reality is "symbolic".
    > Get REAL, gentlemen!

    Paul's attempts to explain the MOQ (without heeding the SOL
    regarding intellect) ends in frustration.

    > And thanks for letting me get this off my chest.

    You're welcome.

    Bo

    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 Jun 09 2005 - 19:52:22 BST