From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 17:49:23 BST
Hi Scott/Mark
Scott:
By "born" I mean "came into existence in physical reality". Pirsig does
imply that, does he not? Or perhaps you miss the metaphoric usage. It
obviously didn't happen in an instant, if that is what you are complaining
about.
Mark: OK. Gotcha. But there is no physical reality in the MoQ, unless i am
mistaken? The MoQ is all about value. Physical reality is Inorganic value
patterning. I apologise if this sounds nit picky? Its just that i cannot
help using
the words of the MoQ, with their inherent philosophical import. Force of
habit
Scott! :)
I suggest only saying 'came into existence', if you say 'physical reality'
you are talking SOM
and accepting its given problematic.
Regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: <Valuemetaphysics@aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 3:41 PM
Subject: MD DQ=SQ tension
> Scott:
> This analogy does not get at my criticism that I (and I hope everyone) see
> myself as creative, while the MOQ assigns creativity to DQ, nor does it
get
> at my criticism that to say that I am a set of SQ "capable of responding"
to
> DQ looks to me like a necessity that Pirsig comes to by assuming a
> particular mystical view to be correct. So while your analogy does help to
> explain the MOQ, it does not explain why my criticisms are invalid.
>
> Mark: Yes, Scott, i see your point. I have let notions of 'me' go so i do
not
> share your view. I guess one has to experience exceptional SQ-SQ harmony
to
> see this?
>
> >
> > Scott
> > This is why the logic of contradictory identity is necessary. It has the
> > positive effect of letting one identify when one is going into error by
> > emphasizing one pole of a contradictory identity (aka a polarity) over
the
> > other. In SOM, this is what happens when one chooses idealism or
> > materialism. In the MOQ, this happens in the above quote.
> >
> > Mark
> > I totally disagree. I feel you fail to let go of DQ; rather, you dismiss
> DQ
> > as insignificant. That may be the source of your trouble? You cannot
> accept
> > that something so important cannot be understood, but which is in fact
> operating
> > at all times.
>
> Scott:
> Where do you get the idea that I dismiss DQ as insignificant? Since I
> consider that everything exists as DQ/SQ tension, surely I must find it of
> utmost significance. And the "You cannot accept that something so
important
> cannot be understood". Since I have been praising the L of CI *because* it
> prevents understanding, I have to wonder why you think this.
>
> Mark: I get the idea that you dismiss DQ as insignificant when you state:
> 'This analogy does not get at my criticism that I (and I hope everyone)
see
> myself as creative, while the MOQ assigns creativity to DQ, nor does it
get at my
> criticism that to say that I am a set of SQ "capable of responding" to DQ
looks
> to me like a necessity that Pirsig comes to by assuming a particular
mystical
> view to be correct.
> Not everyone, and i feel you will find this particularly the case with
many
> creative individuals, feels they are responsible for great insights.
>
> Scott:
> Franklin Merrell-Wolff had two Realizations. In the first, he Realized
> something like your analogy depicts: as he put it, he reduced the subject
to
> a mathematical point (his analogy), which he called the Pure Subject,
which
> matches the idea of experiencing pure DQ. But later he had a second
> Realization in which he realized that there was a lingering dualism in his
> first Realization, which might be put: experiencing DQ, but not DQ *as* SQ
> and SQ *as* DQ. Unlike the first Realization, which fit his understanding
of
> mysticism, the second came as a surprise, but he later read of other
mystics
> which covered this second Realization. My point being that your analogy,
and
> Pirsig's view of mysticism also only fit the first Realization, but not
the
> second.
>
> Mark: When 'in the moment' there is no differentiation. Differentiation's
> emerge upon analysis, and the differentiation's we impose are derived from
our
> culture. Dualism is one differentiation, and Value another. I
differentiate
> patterns of value, and this is not dualism, it is what we may wish to term
> valuism? (I noticed Paul using this term, so i am borrowing it - thanks
Paul!)
>
> >
> > Scott:
> > But Pirsig, influenced by nominalism, treats language and intellect as
> less
> > real in
> > comparison with this hypothetical undivided experience. I say
> hypothetical,
> > because all experience presupposes distinctions, if nothing else, the
> > distinction between the experience and the absence of the experience.
> > Indeed, experience happens *by means of* distinctions.
> >
> > Mark:
> > I cannot speak to your assertion that Pirsig is influenced by
nominalism,
> > except to say that i don't agree with that.
>
> Scott:
> Isn't that speaking to it :-)
>
> Mark: Yes. :-) Just a little bit of light relief in what can be a heavy
area!
> No harm intended.
>
> > I feel you consistently place the cart before the horse? Experience in
the
> > MoQ is primary with distinctions imposed later via ones culture.
>
> Scott:
> This is what the MOQ says. I say differently, that experience and
> distinctions happen together -- they are the same thing.
>
> Mark: Interesting, and i would be happy to agree i think. DQ and SQ cannot
be
> without each other. It is the relationship between them that i find
> engrossing. However, Static patterns change in value while DQ cannot be
encapsulated,
> so i think maybe we have three things here: 1. DQ. 2. SQ. 3. The
relationship
> between them? The relationship is evolution.
> Its at that fine line when the two are at each other that things happen?
>
> > Again, in the seesaw analogy, distinctions about what happened after the
> moment of
> > exceptional balance are not the moment of exceptional balance.
>
> Scott:
> If there were exact balance there would be no experience. Experience
happens
> by virtue of being out of balance.
>
> Mark: Yes. I agree. But this makes 'I' and 'You' patterned experience
while
> the balance is DQ. The source of creativity. 'Out of balance' in the
analogy =
> patterns of value.
>
> > One may experience a move towards balance and a move away from it, but
the
> moment cannot be
> > encapsulated. In the MoQ, the motion towards and away balance is
distinct
> as patterns of
> > value. Each side of the seesaw is inextricably entwined in four ways,
not
> two.
> > And the four distinctions are responding towards and away from
exceptional
> > relationships where DQ has maximum influence.
> >
> > Scott:
> > And so we have (from an earlier post from Paul):
> >
> > "I suppose "awareness" may be used tentatively but "thinking" is
> > definitely not synonymous with Quality."
> >
> > Why not thinking?
> >
> > Mark:
> > Thinking is an aspect of the seesaw motion, but DQ is the source of
> > exceptional relationships. I hate to bang away at the seesaw analogy,
but
> thinking may
> > be seen as that which is not the moment of exceptional balance.
>
> Scott:
> I agree. but I disagree that only the moment of exceptional balance is
where
> there is mystery. That is where, in my view, your analogy fails. You seem
to
> think that thinking about experience is not itself a "real" experience,
that
> it is somehow inferior, that it somehow doesn't involve DQ. I say it does.
>
> Mark: I feel we actually agree far more than you think? I really do.
> For a start, i agree that thinking about experience is real experience.
But
> what i mean by this is that thinking about experience is patterns of
value. But
> from above: 1. DQ. 2. SQ. 3. The relationship between them? The
relationship
> is evolution.
> Its at that fine line when the two are at each other that things happen?
>
>
> >
> > Scott:
> > The ability to think is just as mysterious as the ability
> > to be aware, or the ability to respond to DQ, or the ability to
abstract,
> or
> > the ability to use language, or the ability to perceive value, or the
> > ability to experience. Furthermore, it is only through thinking that
one
> > can dig out and overcome limiting beliefs, and thus grow. It is
> undecidable
> > whether such thinking is that of the little self or of the Big Self, but
> > then the little self *is* the Big Self (Franklin Merrell-Wolff's last
> > thought before his awakening was: there is nothing to attain. "You are
> > already That which you seek").
> >
> > Mark:
> > Again the seesaw: That which you seek is actually that upon which the
> total
> > system is pivoted. You do see that do you not? It's a bit like a mouse
in
> a
> > maze crying, 'Watch me choose my own direction.'
>
> Scott:
> On the contrary, what I "seek" is the realization that the pivot and the
> moving board of the seesaw are the same yet different, a contradictory
> identity. Or, to paraphrase Zen, to be moving away or toward the pivot is
> perfect just as it is. To just seek the pivot is to be attached to a false
> god.
>
> Mark: I agree. We are making a habit of this aren't we!
> However, i do not seek the pivot - DQ. Why? There is no me to do the
seeking;
> 'I' am in a relationship with DQ that IS perfect all the time when i
follow
> the way. (Tao-Quality) I think that's what i mean anyway!
>
> > Through thinking you can come to see the importance of the pivot (DQ in
> the
> > MoQ) and adjust your cultural inheritance to the new way of
> conceptualising. I
> > feel you fail to do this, but rather continue to place the cart before
the
> > horse.
>
> Scott:
> And through more thinking, one can further adjust one's cultural
> inheritance, to overcome, e.g., the conceptualizing that you share with
> Pirsig. You seem to think that if I disagree with the MOQ it is because I
> "just don't get it". What I am saying, of course, is that I do get it, but
> find it based in part on its own weak conceptualizing. You will obviously
> disagree.
>
> Mark: It's a shame to disagree after so much progress? So i will not
> disagree. I will say that i value the MoQ and find it useful. If there is
a better way
> of dealing with my everyday experience - and i feel philosophy must be
> applicable to everyday experience otherwise its an end in itself - then i
am open to
> value it more.
>
> >
> > Scott:
> > My conclusion (or assumption?), anyway, my message from the MOQ, with
this
> > correction, is not that we should treat metaphysics as something one
does,
> > like getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies, but that it is a road to
> > salvation. If, that is, it is oriented around identifying and removing
> > limitations, and not setting them. The MOQ does this well, but not
> entirely.
> >
> > Mark:
> > If you can provide me with a better way of dealing with experience than
> the
> > MoQ and it's DQ-SQ tension then believe me Scott, I'm all for it!
>
> Scott:
> I have: Coleridge, Owen Barfield, Franklin Merrell-Wolff, Georg
Kuhlewind.
> And I -- and I fail to see how you miss this -- have always included DQ-SQ
> tension as an integral part of the story. I merely think these writers do
> better with it than Pirsig.
>
> Mark: Excellent! I must look into this more.
>
> >
> > Scott:
> > As I've said before, the intellectual level has been born, but it is
still
> > in its infancy, and that is why it is a major problem to mystic
> realization.
> >
> > Mark:
> > May i remind you: 'Furthermore, it is only through thinking that one can
> dig
> > out and overcome limiting beliefs, and thus grow.' Perhaps we could
avoid
> the
> > limiting belief that the intellectual level was 'born'? Birth is a
> definitive
> > event, and that is too resolute an assertion for my liking when
discussing
> > intellect. Plus, Pirsig does not say that the intellectual level was
> 'born' does
> > he?
>
> Scott:
> By "born" I mean "came into existence in physical reality". Pirsig does
> imply that, does he not? Or perhaps you miss the metaphoric usage. It
> obviously didn't happen in an instant, if that is what you are complaining
> about.
>
> Mark: OK. Gotcha. But there is no physical reality in the MoQ, unless i am
> mistaken? The MoQ is all about value. Physical reality is Inorganic value
> patterning. I apologise if this sounds nit picky? Its just that i cannot
help using
> the words of the MoQ, with their inherent philosophical import. Force of
habit
> Scott! :)
>
> >
> > Scott:
> > The task is not to try to escape thinking, as Pirsig's mystics seem to
> want
> > to do, but to focus on it, because it -- *because* of its S/O form -- is
> > DQ/SQ tension = Quality, for us at our current stage of evolution.
> >
> > Mark:
> > Not thinking is the source of all static thought. If you wish to be
> creative
> > stop thinking. Not thinking is to move towards and encourage that point
of
> > balance from which DQ intervenes and makes the new static value. You are
> placing
> > the cart before the horse again Scott i feel.
>
> Scott:
> Or you are. Stalemate.
>
> Mark: 1. DQ. 2. SQ. 3. The relationship between them? The relationship is
> evolution.
> Its at that fine line when the two are at each other that things happen?
Does
> this smooth over our problem by making the horse and cart one unit?
>
> >
> > Scott:
> > Note the word "focus", and its use in def. #2 (from LC #111). When
> thinking
> > about
> > thinking, thinking is both subject and object, yet it is not meaningless
> for
> > it to be so. Because we are able to think about thinking, to at once
> create
> > and reunite the S/O divide we have Quality right in our little selves,
and
> > that is why the S/O divide is value in the fourth level. It is a curse
as
> > long as one believes that the divide is an absolute one, but the L of CI
> > prevents that, as does the MOQ. But the L of CI also prevents denying
one
> > side of the divide or the other, which is the error I see in the MOQ.
>
> > Mark:
> > The term S/O divide is meaningless in the MoQ, so to introduce it into a
> > discussion about the MoQ is placing the cart before the horse again.
>
> Well, it is nice to see you vary the statement, but it is still
irrelevant.
> You find it a virtue that the S/O divide is meaningless in the MOQ. I find
> it a defect.
>
> - Scott
>
> Mark: Its just that the 'S/O divide' is not a phrase used in the MoQ. I
have
> looked and its not there. I cannot change that Scott. It is the way it is.
The
> relationship between apparent subjects and apparent objects is sort of
> deconstructed into a more subtle level of value relationships with DQ. But
i am
> merely using the words of the MoQ again, and not really arguing for it am
i?
>
> Mark.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Sun Sep 21 2003 - 17:47:33 BST