From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Jun 14 2005 - 06:03:00 BST
Hey Mike --
Sorry we're not related, but I agree that your pedigree is the more
interesting.
> I continue to find the DQ/SQ split an excellent tool for describing and
exploring
> many, many aspects of reality. I still don't have much to say about the
paradoxical > nature of the split, although after reading your comments I
suspect that the
> confusing aspect of it can be reduced by stopping this placing of DQ
"above" SQ. > I believe that Pirsig's capitalisation of Dynamic quality
stems from its mystical,
> indefinable nature (it's resemblance to capitalised entities such as
God/Tao/the
> Abolute), rather than any increased importance of DQ in relation to SQ.
...
The primary "split" is indeed the most difficult challenge in any
philosophy. It approximates what I call an "absolute truth" which is the
kind of thing I believe to be almost, but not quite, incomprehensible to
man's finite reason. And I think you're right about the "mystical,
indefinable nature" of the undivided Source. I like to think my Essence
ontology is somewhat less complicated than the DQ/SQ split, yet nobody else
has confirmed that notion -- or even tried to understand my philosophy.
I make Essence "immutable", so that it doesn't carry over into the
differentiated SOM realm of existence. I also presuppose a "negational
mode" of Essence which sets up the primary division of "other" and
"not-other" as value-denied contingencies. Proprietary self-awareness
resides in "not-other", while its object, "other", gives rise to the
appearance of "beingness" when fragmented by nothingness (the "not-other")
in the process of experience. There is a pattern to this fragmentation that
may lie in Value, which is the unaltered Essence denied to these existents;
but it's not the kind of pattern Pirsig speaks of in relation to Quality.
The pattern is necessary to make proprietary images "universal" so that
we're all dealing with the same physical reality. As you can see, I rely
heavily on the Intelligent Design concept -- something that, like primary
source and transcendence, Mr. Prisig would reject as "supernatural".
(Apparently "mystical" is OK, though.)
It would be gratifying to see some of these ideas used to fortify the MoQ
metaphysics, but I don't expect it will ever happen. As I write this,
several MD participants are struggling to either "bolster" or destroy Bo
Skutvik's recently introduced "SOL" theory that posits Intellect as the SOM
"creator". But I'm so weary of these endless patterning/leveling arguments
by now that I simply tune them out. Once you've got what you feel is a
pretty good grasp on reality, it's nigh impossible to revert to something
more complex, if not less plausible. So I hope you'll understand and
forgive me for not wanting to explore yet another way of patterning
existence to suit the MoQ.
Nice to hear from you again, Mike.
Best regards,
Ham
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 Jun 14 2005 - 06:04:54 BST