Re: MD Mysticism and the appearance/reality distinction

From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 04:27:59 BST

  • Next message: Valence: "Re: MD Mysticism and the appearance/reality distinction"

    Hey DMB, Matt, Sam, Scott and all,
    Just a few quick thoughts...

    > SAM said:
    > However, that perspective of Pirsig's does not necessitate an equation of
    DQ
    > with Reality. I think that DMB is equating DQ and Reality, whilst Matt is
    > denying it (I'm not sure where Scott stands).
    >
    > DMB says:
    > I think it the other way around. Matt wants DQ to be Reality in order to
    > interpret the MOQ as having an a/r distinction, while I'm saying it is
    just
    > a different order of experience.

    RICK
    I think I'm with DMB on this one. To Pirsig, 'Reality' = 'Quality'.
    'Static and Dynamic Quality' are each aspects of the experience of Quality
    (reality). If Matt places the appearance/reality distinction between static
    and Dynamic quality, then it seems to me that it's a very different kind of
    appearance/reality distinction than the one we're accustomed to seeing
    because it is not sitting between experience and the ultimate reality, but
    rather between two different aspects of experience.

    > Matt had said:
    > This is why I think Pirsig is totally ambivalent on the subject. The
    > concept of "mediated experience" doesn't make any sense to me except to
    say
    > that something is getting in the way of experience. Something is
    > distorting it, like, say, green glasses. If we can shed the distortion,
    > the green glasses, we will have unmediated experience, something
    > undistorted, something pure.
    >
    > DMB says:
    > Mediated. It just means that experience comes through your sense organs.

    RICK
    I think Matt has a point here. The very definition of 'mediate' is to be
    getting between two things. So perhaps aligning 'Dynamic and static
    quality' with 'unmediated and mediated experience' isn't quite the best way
    of thinking about it. If we think of Pirsig's undivided reality as
    "Quality" and we think of "Dynamic and static quality" as aspects of the
    experience of "Quality", then the green tint is gone. To carry over the
    'glasses' analogy, it's more like we are experiencing reality through a set
    of static/Dynamic bifocals. In this sense, if there's some sort of
    appearance/reality distinction at work, it must be said that is comes
    between "Quality" and "Quality experienced as DQ and sq". But I'm not sure
    that that really sounds like a traditional app/reality distinction to me
    either.

    take care
    rick

    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 Apr 01 2003 - 04:28:05 BST