From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Oct 08 2005 - 18:48:57 BST
Bo --
> I was a little hungry for recognition and possibly read into your
> posts more than it said. This is "hangover" day ;-)
>
> This may be what I call the "intelligence fallacy". You may be
> right that Pirsig didn't account for it, but the MOQ allows us to
> account for it (something I have done several times) At least it is
> its being confused with the STATIC intellectual LEVEL (which is
> the said cartesian duality) and has messed the MOQ up.
If you can disengage yourself from the "levels" and consider proprietary
awareness the basis of all reality, I think you'll see that your philosophy
is fundamentally the same as mine. The difference between existence and
reality is an experiential difference: experience divides reality
infinitesimally so that what we perceive is a differentiated "otherness"
instead of a unified "sameness". Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems
to be the ontology you are arguing for -- as opposed to ...
> reality as a categorized system that creates itself
> and that views man as only an anomalous component.
> Man an anomaly? Come on Ham. The human race was the one
> capable of - first - bringing the social development up to the stage
> of supporting the intellectual one, and then bringing this to the
> stage of seeing the Quality stage context.
My conception of man is not his "race", culture or history. It is the
irreducible individual cognizance whose ground is self-awareness. Existence
is a "single point" reality system, Bo. It stands in absolute contrast to
its undifferentiated source (Essence). My Essence can be likened to the
ineffable Oneness of Taosim and Buddhism that you folks are so fond of.
Pirsig has claimed the same association for his Quality concept. Except for
the insidious levels which make it all but impossible to understand that the
individual is the locus of existential reality, the MoQ has much in common
with Essentialism.
> Sorry Ham. I will go on discussing the MOQ and talk
> "patterntalk". Your system looks so much what the MOQ is a
> liberation from. But why are you such a nice person while us
> moqists sound so zealous?
Could it be that "zealousness" is more characteristic of cult movements than
of classical philosophies (and their proponents)?
Give that some thought before launching your attack.
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 : Sat Oct 08 2005 - 19:53:29 BST