Re: MD Self-Evident MoQ Truths

From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Wed Aug 10 2005 - 12:52:32 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Enlightenment or Revelation"

    Hi Scott,

    I'll comment on what you've written to Paul below.

    > Scott:
    > The phrase "[DQ] is the origin of all things from a Dynamic understanding"
    > is centric. From a differential point of view, there is no origin, that both
    > "seeings" (from the static point of view and from the dynamic) are wrong.
    > The problem with the MOQ is that it based on the dynamic "seeing:". And so
    > what you say does not address the final point in the post you are responding
    > to:

    The MOQ isn't based on dynamic "seeing". "Seeing" is a static pattern, I think that simply Dynamic Quality is ultimate in the MOQ.

    >
    > "I do not give it a rest because your/Pirsig's form of philosophical
    > mysticism (what Magliola calls "centric Zen") is the basis from which Pirsig
    > deals with intellect. Intellect divides, which according to your view is
    > taken to lead one away from the center. But if the divided is understood to
    > be in contradictory identity with the undivided, then one can appreciate
    > that intellect creates, that it is DQ as well as SQ, that there is no
    > "center", that the aesthetic requires division, and is not "beyond" it."

    Again, the MOQ isn't based on a Dynamic Quality "center", center is a static pattern. Also, there's no need for requirement, nature does the division all by itself, and finally, Dynamic Quality
    isn't 'beyond' anything!

    > That is, the metaphysics portrayed in Lila is worked out *as if* DQ is an
    > undivided center. This is why Pirsig capitalizes DQ but not SQ. This is why
    > intellect is seen as leading one away from DQ, as just SQ and not in itself
    > DQ. This is why Pirsig talks of something "pre-intellectual" which intellect
    > covers up.
    >
    > Now you do not agree with me that intellect is DQ. So what I am trying to
    > point out is that the basis of our disagreement lies with the language that
    > Pirsig uses to discuss DQ in Lila. I do not accept that language, preferring
    > the language of contradictory identity, which is also applicable (necessary,
    > IMO) to discussing intellect and the individual (the self). Because Pirsig
    > uses the language of centric Zen in Lila, the self is seen as just SQ.

    And herein lies the misunderstanding. In the MOQ, the self is not seen as 'just' SQ. Heaven forbid if it was! It's actually defined as the patterns capable of apprehending/responding to DQ. What is
    the cause of your desire for a DQ/SQ,SQ/DQ combination? To me this just confuses the two concepts which cannot be distinguished from each other as soon as the combination is made. If your having
    trouble reconciling the two, perhaps I may point out that Quality and the word is a within each of them.

    > I see
    > it as a locus of contradictory identity of DQ and SQ. So the point I am
    > making is that the difference in my metaphysics from Pirsig's is a
    > consequence of the difference in our language used to discuss mystical
    > reality. So who is right? Or is it just a matter of both of us starting from
    > a different faith? (I note in passing that this difference cannot be settled
    > empirically, so it is nonsense to describe the MOQ as empirical).
    >
    > Of course, I think I am right, and to back that up I gave the Magliola
    > quote -- though it takes reading the whole book to drive it home. But Sam's
    > response to DMB in the "Tat Tvam Asi, Campbell and Theosis" thread is also
    > applicable. The source of the anti-intellectual language of Pirsig stems, I
    > believe, from the Romantic reaction to Modernism, which is to say, it is
    > itself Modernist, dependent on a SOM view of intellect (as a mirror of
    > nature, and hence separate from nature). So when Zen came to the West, its
    > anti-intellectual form was emphasized. Watts is probably the main person
    > responsible for this, though Northrop also falls into this trap.
    >
    > Let me leave you with this question: I said that the aesthetic requires
    > division. Do you agree? If so, does it make any sense at all to speak of an
    > undifferentiated aesthetic continuum? If not, can you explain how one can
    > have an aesthetic experience (or experience simpliciter) without division?

    This is DQ, apprehended eventually, by patterns.

    -David

    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 Aug 10 2005 - 13:18:10 BST