Re: Re: MD The final solution or new frustration.

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 17:04:41 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD Krishnamurti"

    Steve,

    > > Platt said to Scott:
    > > Here's where our major difference lies. I go along with Pirsig's idea
    > > that the
    > > cutting edge of DQ is pure experience prior to disintegration into
    > > patterns, symbols, thoughts and ideas. You say the cutting edge is
    > > patterns, symbols, thoughts and ideas, as if that once you become an
    > > adult you'll never experience anything again for the first that isn't
    > > an intellectual pattern of one sort or another. Is that an accurate
    > > summary of your belief?.

    > Steve
    > Sorry to butt in again.
    >
    > Our major difference is that I think experiences in the form of thoughts
    > have a dynamic cutting edge as do experiences of hot stoves. We aren't
    > any closer to reality when getting burned on a stove as we are when we
    > have an idea. When we think we dynamically hypothesize rationales and
    > select relevent symbols and concepts on the basis of undefined Quality.
    > Of course we also follow established rules of logic (static patterns) so
    > thinking like all experiences has both dynamic and static components.

    I wouldn't put it that way because of Pirsig's clear and repeated
    description of the dynamic cutting edge as "pre-intellectual." However,
    perhaps the following quote from his SODV paper is something we can
    agree on:

    "But one of the reasons I have spent so much time in this paper
    describing the personal relationship of Werner Heisenberg and Niels
    Bohr in the development of quantum theory is that although the world
    views science as a sort of plodding, logical methodical advancement of
    knowledge, what I saw here were two artists in the throes of creative
    discovery. They were at the cutting edge of knowledge plunging into the
    unknown trying to bring something out of that unknown into a static
    form that would be of value to everyone. As Bohr might have loved to
    observe, science and art are just two different complementary ways of
    looking at the same thing. In the largest sense it is really
    unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and sciences because in
    actual practice, at the most immediate level they have never really
    been separated. They have always been different aspects of the same
    human purpose."

    Anyway, feel free to butt in any time. We learn from one another even
    if we don't always agree.

    Thanks,
    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 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 17:14:49 BST