Re: MD SOLAQI as a gift of understanding

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Feb 02 2004 - 20:31:52 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ"

     Paul:
    > Only an empiricism that starts with a subject experiencing an object.

    Well, exactly Pirsig's use is unique, it was not clear that you wanted to
    use
    it that way, experience is the better word to use as its SOM presuppositions
    are not as strong as those that are attached to philsophical empiricism, as
    surely
    you know.

     David said:
    > How do you think of quality in a non-conscious way?
    >
    > Paul:
    > I can't *think* of anything in a non-conscious way. Thinking and
    > experiencing are not the same thing in the MOQ.
    >
    DM:That's just point scoring, I am placing experience and consciousness
    and quality together as inseparable, I cannot see a way not to, can you?
    To me the non-conscious implies mechanism, static patterns, law-like
    behaviour. There is clearly conscious awareness without intellect(seen in
    terms of thinking/language/symbol manipulation). Intellect requires
    DQ/conscious/aware activity to occur. However, creativity/DQ is
    somehow out of nowhere/emergent perhaps you could say in a way
    come as a gift to consciousness. How can there be quality that is not
    in the clearing of consciousness/awareness? You could put it the
    other way round: quality opens the clearing where consciousness/awareness
    opens its 'eyes' but the static/pattern stuff can only come once we start
    dividing
    this unity into parts.

    regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 2:27 PM
    Subject: RE: MD SOLAQI as a gift of understanding

    > David
    >
    > David said:
    > Of course you cannot pin it down empirically because empiricism assumes
    > SO divide.
    >
    > Paul:
    > Only an empiricism that starts with a subject experiencing an object.
    >
    > Pirsig: "I think the trouble is with the word, "experience." ....In a
    > subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a pre-existing
    > object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or
    > object. Experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous....So in the
    > MOQ experience comes first, everything else comes later. This is pure
    > empiricism, as opposed to scientific empiricism, which, with its
    > pre-existing subjects and objects, is not really so pure." [Lila's Child
    > p.548]
    >
    > David said:
    > How do you think of quality in a non-conscious way?
    >
    > Paul:
    > I can't *think* of anything in a non-conscious way. Thinking and
    > experiencing are not the same thing in the MOQ.
    >
    > David said:
    > If quality is experienced then quality is within consciousness.
    >
    > Paul:
    > Not if thinking and experiencing are not the same thing.
    >
    > David said:
    > My problem with idealism is with its closure and failure to make room
    > for DQ. Consciousness, however, clearly is a concept that seems to hint
    > at/imply DQ. I think that we
    > use terms that overlap at various points. I like to think that we start
    > with a sort of
    > experiece/quality/conscious/free/value/care/Being/Be(com)ing whole and
    > then move on to a SQ/DQ differentiation followed by the full and never
    > ending differentiation of all SQ. I do think consciousness is closely
    > tied to DQ, Heidegger calls it the clearing into which Being gathers.
    >
    > Paul:
    > If you equate consciousness with DQ then you have to explain the
    > difference between consciousness as DQ (mystic consciousness) and
    > consciousness as intellect (regular consciousness), so you end up with
    > two terms anyway - static and Dynamic Consciousness. In the MOQ we
    > already have a metaphysical monism in "Quality." I can't see what good
    > is gained from equating Quality with consciousness, but I can see the
    > negative effect of partially defining what has been deliberately left
    > undefined.
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Paul
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Mon Feb 02 2004 - 21:00:27 GMT