From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Apr 04 2004 - 22:42:44 BST
DMB said: First, the illusion of dividedness is not created by
or exclusive to SOM. All languages divide and create this illusion
DM: Sure, but the hope of MOQ for me is that we can
use langaunge, do lots of SQ analysis without losing sight of the
human/conscious construction of these patterns, and not think
that we have finally tapped into some underlying substance/pattern
that explains everything. This links to my anti-postmodern assertions
that science involves a conversational partner called nature. Yet we
construct the langauge (and the interpretation of what nature replies) in
which nature replies/.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 11:35 PM
Subject: MD illusions
> DM and all MOQers:
>
> dmb said:
> In an ultimate sense, say the mystics, reality is undivided. And yet the
> task is to realize that. Prior to the completion of that task we are all
> cursed with the belief in a world of separate objects, of dividedness.
This
> illusory world is the static world, and normally we don't think of that as
> God. That's why neither intellectual speculations nor theological dogmas
can
> be adequate substitutes for the actual experience. They're part of what
> needs to be let go of in order to shatter that illusion.
>
> DM replied:
> I think that what you and Sam say can be tied together. The whole point of
> MOQ
> is to replace SOM, what SOM does is to forget DQ aspects of experience and
> try to understand the cosmos in terms of SQ aspects of experience. There
is
> therefore a falling away to the pole of SQ in SOM that takes us away from
> the underlying unity of experience. To re-discover DQ is therefore to move
> back towards unity. But the whole is quality or SQ & DQ. SQ is not an
> illusion, SQ without DQ is the illusion, or SQ as the totality/whole. The
> genuine wholeness of experience underlies of includes SQ/DQ. Does that
makes
> sense?
>
> dmb says:
> I think it makes sense, but I don't entirely agree. As I see it there are
> two distinctly different but interconnected things going on here. On one
> hand we have the undivided mystical reality and the illusion of
dividedness
> that language imposes. On the other hand we have the MOQ with its DQ/sq
> split. Its pretty easy to see that the MOQ's sq refers to the divided
world,
> the world of definitions and definable things and that DQ refers to the
> undivided mystical reality. There are at least two problems with your
> explanation, however. First, the illusion of dividedness is not created by
> or exclusive to SOM. All languages divide and create this illusion. That's
> why both kinds of Indians, the ones with the dots and the ones with the
> feathers, have had to develop ways to overcome this illusion...
>
> Pirsig wrote:
> "They (mystics) share a common belief that the fundamental nature of
reality
> is outside language; that language splits things up into parts while the
> true nature of reality is undivided. Zen, which is a mystic religion,
argues
> that the illusion of dividedness can be overcome by meditation. The Native
> American Church argues that peyote can force-feed a mystic understanding
> upon those who were normally resistant to it,..." LILA (ch 5)
>
> dmb continues:
> Don't get me wrong. I think there is some truth in your view because SOM
> basically insists that this illusory world of dividedness is not only
real,
> it tells us its the ONLY thing that's really real. It sort of culturally
> locks in the illusion and makes it very difficult to overcome. But I don't
> think we can overcome this age-old dream by switching from one
metaphysical
> system to even a much better one. As much of an improvment as it may be,
> both SOM and the MOQ are both linguistic divisions of that undivided
> reality. They are both static and are part of that divided reality.
>
>
> In chapter nine Pirsig says:
> "Actually the issue before him was not whether there should be a
metaphysics
> of Quality or not. There already IS a metaphysics of Quality. A
> subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first
> division of Quality - the first slice of undivided experience - is into
> subjects and objects."
>
> dmb concludes:
> Its worth pointing out that Pirsig does not make the static/Dynamic split
> until the middle of chapter nine. Prior to that he is still talking about
> everything in terms of "Quality", his one-word metaphysical system left
over
> from ZAMM. Don't let that confuse you. It doesn't matter if the divisions
> are SOM, MOQ or consist of just one word. They all violate the mystic
unity
> of reality.
>
> In chapter nine Pirsig says:
> "Its alright to condemn somebody else's bad metaphysics but you can't
> replace it with a metaphysics that consists of just one word. By even
using
> the term 'Quality' he had already violated the nothingness of mystic
> reality."
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> 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 Apr 04 2004 - 22:54:16 BST