From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Fri Aug 05 2005 - 20:41:40 BST
Hi Scott
> Scott:
> This makes sense. I would interject one thing, which makes my view
> different
> from the MOQ. That is that what makes the i-realm different from the
> p-realm
> is that in the i-realm DQ is directly observable, while (in our current
> state of consciousness) it has to be inferred in the p-realm. In other
> words, we are, as individuals, DQ as well as SQ.
DM: I think I almost agree with you. In the p-realm our attention is pretty
much
on SQ, but we may have some sense of DQ mixed into the SQ, in feelings
about nature being alive perhaps, or in being confronted by the emergence
of something truly new. And then within the private (private to other
i-realms)
confines of our i-realm we can withdraw our attention from the p-realm, we
can retreat from all difference and experience into the unity of the
Nothing.
And for me Nothing is utterly full of potential, the source of DQ and yes,
the
i-realm is open to this source and able to participate/accept the emergence
of the new and dynamic. Whether we say open to DQ or participating in DQ
is perhaps not that important. The i-realm is both separate and merely a
part
of the larger I-realm I would say.
> Scott:
> Well, I see this as needing more work. As I see it, what you say concedes
> too much to naive realism. My objection to saying that the p-realm is
> shared
> is that the describable (sharable) aspects of the p-realm (the qualities)
> are created by the observer. Hence what is shared is not independent of
> the
> i-realm, as objectivism would have us believe.
DM: Maybe, maybe not. I want to be a realist but preferably not naive.
I think two different i-realms need to separately possess similar/same SQ
notions
of a table to be able to separate out from a common world the same
part of the whole & from 2 different perspectives in fact, but still the
same table being 'picked out' of reality. As an individual I am embodied as
an
i-realm open to the world and experiencing its effects on me from a unique
perspective and in a limited way, i.e. I only experience part of the
w-realm,
which is a definition of the p-realm, and at the same time I am partof the
embodied w-world, where embodied means being available to all other
i-realms to experience my presence. An individual is therefore both a small
part
of the w-realm, open to experience the rest of the whole w-realm as other,
but also open to the I-realm and able to bring (as a sortof openning) into
all the other realms the unemerged contents ofthe I-realm.
> DM: <skip>
> Yes the p-realm is flux prior to there being patterns in the i-realm to
> cut
> the p-realm up with.
>
> Scott:
> Why do you claim this?
DM: Well emerging from the flux. I see the p-realm as emerging with the
differentiation of the w-realm into parts. Separation into a part of the
whole
means being in relationship with all else as other. The basis of this
relationship is the
effect the other has on this separate part. This effect either good or bad
is what we
mean by quality. Quality emerges with the movement from One to many.
Initially
the p-realm is therefore the experience of quality and the start of
attraction/repulsion
to or from the other. This is the pre-reflective quality experience. As
separateness
increases we move towards the polarity of SOM. It is with the move away from
just experiencing quality to more detached forms of consciousness that we
move
away from participatory consciousness to the intellectuality of SOM
polarity. This
is not to say that intellect cannot then start to understand the stages
consciousness
has passed through to see the way back to appreciate its origins in unity &
the
direct experience of quality -the whole point of MOQ I would say.
>
> DM: I agree here with Pirsig that these patterns begin when i-realms
> respond
> to
> the w-realm
> in terms of positive/negative value/quality.
>
> Scott:
> And I disagree. Here I would say you are conceding too much to the
> nominalist.
DM: I say that by starting to name parts of experience Adam (if you like)
begins reflective consciousness, the world exists prior to this naming, but
the
cosmos was sleeping prior to this opening its reflective eye on itself as
Schelling
put it.
> Scott:
> No, because you seem to be saying there is no pattern without an i-realm,
> but SQ is pattern. Hence there would be no SQ without an i-realm, but you
> are clearly saying that SQ is in the I- and w-realms prior to there being
> i-realms. That is what I assume you mean by 'flux' anyway:
> patternlessness.
> So maybe this should be cleared up first.
DM: Yes pattern begins in the w-realm and I-realm. What I am saying is that
the p-realm requires pattern from the w-realm and the I-realm indirectly via
the i-realms to take on the form of consciousness. So that consciousness
involves
a re-flective aspect, ofnatural SQ face to face with i-realm SQ.
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 : Fri Aug 05 2005 - 22:50:48 BST