From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 13 2004 - 19:04:10 GMT
Hi Scott
I do think DQ underlies SQ to the extent that
I take static quality as being identifiable only if
something repeats, hence static patterns. Clearly
not everything repeats. There is only one Newton
you might say. Or there may be one off particles
that never repeat, are never identified. Creativity
has the option of always changing, therefore no repeat.
It seems to me that, in a sense, DQ withdraws its tendency
to creativity when it repeats. It does the same again, it
is no longer creative, therefore no pattern, nothing static.
In a way such static less creativity is pure nothingness,
on the edge on this cosmos. A particle pair that appears
and disappears forever.
I also think that there is a way back to
experiencing DQ without thinking. Meditation is a withdrawal
from thinking. There is a form of experience without division,
a floating, drifting experience of pure becoming, where
perhaps you focus on a flower and experience its motionless
utterly flowing becoming, its pouring forth into your experience.
Its unity with your experience.
Any resonance with you Scott?
regards
David M
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: MD Re: Rorty (Big Self & small self)
> David M,
>
> > Scott said:
> >
> > Yes, the static patterns manifest DQ, but my objection is that Pirsig
> takes
> > this in a nominalistic way, as evidenced by his considering DQ as
> > "pre-intellectual", and in general seeing the intellect as covering up
DQ.
> >
> > DM: I guess my view, to offer an alternative, is that DQ clearly
underlies
> > all SQ so one approach to DQ is to
> > get away from all differentiation/intellect. However, another way pushes
> > intellect as far as it can go, intellect clearly
> > covers up the existence of DQ/Becoming as argues by Heidegger/Bhaskar in
> the
> > form of SOM, however there is the
> > possibility of pushing intellect out beyond SOM, where, in a way, as
> > Heidegger says 'thinking breaks' and you arrive
> > back at DQ, and in an intellectually more profound way having passed
> through
> > the limitations of SOM.
>
> I would disagree with "DQ clearly underlies all SQ". As I see it, neither
> exists without the other, each totally depends on the other while
> contradicting the other. So one cannot underlie the other. So I don't
> accept, for example, Pirsig's picture of DQ being a "leading edge" that
> leaves SQ in its wake.
>
> The approach to DQ to "get away from all differentiation/intellect" is, as
I
> see it, an example of falling into Wilber's pre/trans fallacy. One should
> not be seeking to "arrive back" at DQ, but to Know DQ in all SQ, and the
> most direct route for that is through thinking. Not to reason it out, but
to
> learn to perceive the thinking process, and not just to observe already
> thought thoughts (here I am paraphrasing Georg Kuhlewind, for example in
> "Stages of Consciousness", and he is explicating Rudolf Steiner.) So, yes
to
> the possibility of "pushing intellect out beyond SOM", to something more
> profound, though I don't think anything breaks but the ego.
>
> - 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
>
>
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 Jan 13 2004 - 19:13:39 GMT