From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 16:14:49 BST
Hi Sam,
> : Connecting the other words isn't hard if you accept the MoQ
> : presumptions:
> :
> : Quality=Reality (Existence)
> : Quality=Experience (Now)
> : Experience=Awareness=Apprehension=Consciousnes
> : Consciousness="I" or Self ("It's Quality that has Lila." (11))
> : Quality=the Tao (as you suggest)
> :
> : It is only when intellect does its divisive thing that we get these
> different : words all pointing to the same phenomenon. : : Or so I'm
> beginning to conclude.
>
> It was having the 'self' in there that made me want to question the
> identity of the various words. I see the 'self' as a level 4 static
> pattern, not Quality as such, and many of the other words (experience,
> consciousness etc) as the interplay between that static pattern and
> Quality/the Tao itself. So although they are closely linked, I don't see
> them as equivalent. So from your original list, I would make the following
> division:
>
> Quality = Tao = "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum"
> "I" or Self = level 4 static pattern
> Reality, Now, Existence, Apprehension, Experience, Consciousness =
> interplay between the above.
>
> So from the point of view of the level 4 pattern, the six latter synonyms
> can *appear* identical with Quality and the Tao, but in fact they are
> distinct. I think they are relational terms. (Consciousness could be a
> synonym for the static pattern)
An interesting split or division where the I or Self as a level 4 static
pattern plays an intermediary role between the undifferentiated aesthetic
continuum and reality. I really can't quarrel with it too much for the
following reason.
One problem in discussing this is simply our need to use words to
discuss it, and words are definitely from the intellectual pattern's "point
of view," a step down and after unfettered, primary, undifferentiated
Quality. No doubt the I or Self is 4th pattern dominated. But I would
argue that the I or Self has conscious capacities above the 4th level,
else we could not identify the 4th level as such. As I've said before, we
can't get outside ourselves to describe our wordless, primary experience
because we are that experience itself. As written in the Brihadaranyaka
Upanishad:
"Thou couldst not see the seer of sight, thou couldst not hear the hearer
of hearing, nor perceive the perceiver of perception, nor know the knower
of knowledge."
That's why I think I or Self is synonymous with the other words. In
contrast, your view seems to be that Quality is a phenomenon separate
from anything or anyone experiencing it--an independent entity that
exists whether observed or not, and certainly independent of any Self..
But, that said, I speak, as is necessary to speak at all, from the
intellectual pattern viewpoint. That we cannot escape (except through
art). We split pure, primary, undifferentiated experience to make
meaning and to communicate, values necessary for our survival. While
Steve finds the inner/outer split of value to interpret the MoQ, and I
prefer the primary/secondary split, you like to knife the phenomenon to
which we all point another way. I guess it's like a deck of cards. No
matter how you cut it, it's the same deck. The great thing about the
MoQ is that it gives us a entirely different set of cards to play with,
shunting aside to the back room all those old philosophical card games
and in so doing giving apoplexy to many academic philosophologists.
Platt
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 : Thu May 08 2003 - 16:16:02 BST