From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Apr 08 2004 - 00:27:00 BST
>
> Hi Rick
I have switched the below note to the discuss area.
>
> In case it helps this is how I think about the relationship
> between quality and conceptual thought/metaphysics.
> Reality=quality=experience=DQ/SQ=Being/Becoming.
> This is the totality/undivided. There is something irreducibly
> mystical/unlimited/transcendent/open about experience.
> It pours through us, it is ungraspable as a whole as Wittgenstein
> says. However, the SQ, the patterns are graspable to some extent,
> we can use concepts to grasp more and more of it, although fallibly,
> although never finally and totally because it always remains to
> some degree, or in part, transcendent. Like yin and yang, you
> can move towards yin but never completely eliminate yang.
>
> any use....
> David M
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Valuemetaphysics@aol.com>
> To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 5:13 PM
> Subject: Re: MF Re: March 2004 - Metaphysics and the mystical reality.
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Hi Rick,
> >>
> >> R
> >> Pirsig says that the MoQ's value is in providing a new central term for
> >> mysticism, a topic which he believes 'a scientifically oriented mind'
> >
> >
> would
>
> >> consider claptrap. I'm not sure why simply renaming a philosophical
> >
> >
> concept
>
> >> would convince anyone to reevaluate it (renaming 'creationism' as
> >> 'intellegent design' didn't change my opinion the quality of that
theory).
> >>
> >> Mark: 5-4-04: Mysticism is not conceptual, that is why many
philosophers
> >
> >
> and
>
> >> scientists have a problem with it. Indeed, you are generating similar
> >
> >
> problems
>
> >> by placing the conceptual horse before the mystic cart, and this is
> >> confusing.
> >> One of the serious problems i find in these discussions is the nature
of
> >
> >
> the
>
> >> discussion itself; if the discussion is conceptual, then there is no
way
> >
> >
> we
>
> >> are going to progress.
> >> For this reason, and it is a rational decision, we should leave DQ well
> >> alone. As Pirsig himself suggests, we can discover a great deal about
DQ
> >
> >
> by
>
> >> discovering what it is not.
> >>
> >> Rick:
> >> I think that scientist he's talking about would just say something
like,
> >
> >
> "you
>
> >> can call it whatever you want but it's still just the same metaphysical
> >> claptrap."
> >>
> >> Mark: 5-4-04: Experience is not claptrap. If a scientist wishes to
define
> >> Quality, then let him/her do so.
> >>
> >> But I think Anthony gets right to the heart of the question when
> >> he writes....
> >>
> >> McWATT (from his textbook 2:3:5)
> >> "Firstly, the MOQ centres round the term 'Quality' (with a capital 'Q)
> >
> >
> which
>
> >> is used, interchangeably with 'Value'. 'Quality' is used to denote
> >
> >
> reality
>
> >> (by which Pirsig means the totality of what exists) in addition to its
> >> traditional context (i.e. as a synonym for excellence). In LILA, the
term
> >> 'Quality' is interchangeable with the term 'Dynamic Quality' when a
mystic
> >> viewpoint is taken. This can be confusing at times though the
> >
> >
> understanding
>
> >> that Pirsig is alluding to can usually be understood in the context of
the
> >> particular passage."
> >>
> >> R
> >> ..I agree with Ant when he notes that Pirsig's use of Quality and
dynamic
> >> quality as interchangeable 'in a mystic context' is confusing but I
don't
> >> understand the second half of that sentence.
> >>
> >> Mark: 5-4-04: This goes back to which hat you are wearing, either your
> >> mystical or conceptual hat. The conceptual is inside the mystical, and
if
> >
> >
> you mix
>
> >> them up you discover you cannot place the One inside the other.
> >> But don't ask me to explain the One because nobody can.
> >> The question i find interesting is how we move forward from this point?
> >
> >
> These
>
> >> discussions rather become caught up chasing a tail that will always be
one
> >> step ahead of the chace.
> >>
> >> When dmb asks if the MoQ helps with the apparent distinction between
the
> >> mystic and metaphysics, i would agree the answer is yes. This is
because
> >
> >
> DQ is not
>
> >> conceptualised in the MoQ.
> >>
> >> Rick:
> >> It sounds as though he's conceding that Pirsig uses the terms
> >
> >
> inconsistently
>
> >> but that it's okay as long as one doesn't try and read it all together.
> >>
> >> Mark: 5-4-04: Or, one may wish to say, that in the conceptual realm of
> >> understanding, we are at an appropriately sophisticated level of
> >
> >
> perception as to
>
> > choose not to extend concepts to the mystical realm of experience?
> >
> > All the best,
> > 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 08 2004 - 00:40:10 BST