From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 03:24:46 BST
Platt,
> As I understand it, when you speak of the lack of "self-existence" you are
> speaking within the conceptual, symbol-dependent world of language,
> mathematics, art, etc.-- the world of intellectual level static Quality.
I may be misunderstanding you here. If you are saying that I am saying that
lack of self-existence is a characteristic of concepts, then no, I am not
saying that. I am saying it is a characteristic of everything. My concept of
an amoeba lacks self-existence, and so does the amoeba itself.
> By contrast, the world of Dynamic Quality, pure experience prior to
> concepts, the intuitive world of "One without a second," lacks all
> dualism or division, thus precluding "relationships" and "contingency" or
> concepts of any kind.
I partly disagree with this: see below
> What I realized mystically (after guidance by Pirsig) is that at least a
> part of reality, although clearly understood, cannot be spoken of at all.
> Pirsig says:
>
> "Historically mystics have claimed that for a true understanding of
> reality metaphysics is too "scientific." Metaphysics is not reality.
> Metaphysics is names about reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where they
> give you a thirty-thousand-page menu and no food." (5)
>
> The MoQ allows both worlds, non-contingent mystic and contingent symbolic,
> to complement one another simultaneously. If a metaphysics hangs just on
> words like "contingency" and slights or ignores the Tao which cannot be
> conveyed either by words or by silence but is understood by direct
> experience, then that metaphysics is incomplete.
Yes, except if you add the Tao, you are still incomplete, because you now
have a dualist metaphysics (and a temptation to idolize the TAO). Hence, the
Buddhists say "Nirvana is samsara", or the Tao *is* the contingency. So in a
completed MoQ, somehow, DQ is SQ (while also not SQ). Hence my interest in
the logic of contradictory identity.
I'm also bothered by the Pirsig quote. While it is obvious that one cannot
eat the menu, it is not obvious (to me) that metaphysics is not the reality.
While it makes sense to say that "there is a waterhole on the other side of
the ridge" is a statement about something, with metaphysics I think one
needs a different kind of semantics. A metaphysical system is, in my
opinion, more like a huge definition. It is an attempt to create a language
game. Of course, I am here trying to change the meaning of 'metaphysics',
and so how it is done. (I also object to the quote in that it retains the
SOM-ish privileging of "reality" over language. I do not assume that the
other levels form the basis of the intellectual level, and so are in some
way more real.)
- Scott
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 May 30 2003 - 03:26:10 BST