From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Jun 22 2005 - 19:09:30 BST
Hi Platt --
You express yourself beautifully, and your statements are clear and to the
point, as are your references. That's why we're always able to communicate,
despite our differences. I only wish that others could be as lucid.
Here are the two relevant snips from your comment of 6/21:
> Just so, any reality based on the subject/object split (SOM) is going to
> be inconsistent or incomplete. Why? Because it makes no provision for
> values. The proof? Even though values cannot be defined and thus are
> unacceptable to SOM, a world without values would be unrecognizable. We
> couldn't survive long unless we intuitively knew some things are better
> than others.
>
> Bo is simply saying (again) that values come first before intellectual and
> intellect's dependence on the S/O split. As such, MOQ reality is not
> understood by logical analysis which characterizes the intellectual level,
> but rather depends on one's attunement and giving priority to indefinable
> goodness. The MOQ vision of reality is like that of a mathematician's,
> where beauty and truth are united.
I said:
> That would be a reasonable complaint if it were a valid assertion. But
the
> truth is that values are experienced ONLY in an SOM reality. Finite
> creatures cannot experience the absolute, undifferentiated reality.
To which you replied:
> I beg to differ. Finite creatures like you and me experience absolute,
> undifferentiated reality all the time. It's the value-filled now moment,
> totally embracing us with its ever present presence.
There's no way, short of Nirvana, that you and I can experience Absolute
Essence. Your "value-filled (beauty) moment" may be exquisitely pleasing to
you, but it is the sensory experience of something you perceive in time and
space. One can't admire a painting without observing its myriad images and
colors. What would your Rachmaninov be without its harmonic progression
from the opening statement of the theme through the development and on to
the final climax? Obviously, this is more than "a moment" in time.
In other words, your perception is differentiated and relates to various
attributes of the object or phenomenon to which you are attuned. That is
not experiencing "the absolute". The value of the music is in its rendering
to your sensibilities, including the nostalgia of remembered associations
with it. So, in addition to the pianist's performance and the concerto's
complexity, which you evaluate intellectually, your mind calls up nostalgiac
memories at the same time that you are luxuriating in the aural beauty of
what you are hearing. The feelings you enjoy involve even more complex and
differentiated sensations produced by your neuro-sensory system and its
hormonal affects on your body.
No, Platt. While I agree with you on principle -- that the Primary Source
is the Oneness perceived by man as Value -- I maintain that what you so
easily call an experience of "absolute, undifferentiated value" is an
intricately differentiated experience that is conditioned by your state of
mind and familiarity with objective phenomena. Absolute Value is reserved
for the undifferentiated Reality -- Essence -- which, as I've said before,
is immutable. Our finite sensibilities are the Designer's way of providing
an autonomous (extrinsic) agency for the perfection of the Whole.
Pirsig has given short shrift to the "primary reality", in my opinion, by
denying its transcendence. He has no metaphysics to account for an
"uncreated Source". He refuses to deal with this philosophical issue
because it would be considered a *deus ex machine*, a "supernatural"
solution to his unsolved riddle. That's really a shame, because in avoiding
the inevitable he has left his MoQ and his philosophical legacy in limbo.
I appreciate the fact that you and the rest of the MoQ loyalists feel
otherwise. However, having gotten myself enmeshed in this MD dialogue, I
hope you will understand if I inject my personal thoughts from time to time,
as an outsider looking in.
After all, who knows but what someone out there may be more receptive to
this metaphysical worldview that I call Essentialism?
Still essentially yours,
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 : Wed Jun 22 2005 - 21:28:52 BST