From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jul 14 2004 - 09:24:25 BST
Hi Platt
Platt said:
> When you say "the experience creates the experiencer and the
experienced"
> it comes across like a koan which, in the Western world, goes over
like a
> lead balloon. I'm not arguing that you are wrong in interpreting the
MOQ.
> I'm trying to make the point, however, that even in Pirsig's
description
> of "pure experience," such as the hot-stove example, there's always
the
> presupposition of an experiencer present.
Paul:
It is difficult, but I think the key thing is to remember that whatever
is there "experiencing" is part of the "conceptually unknown," and is
not to be confused with a subject or a self in the Cartesian sense. The
self arises *from* the experience.
Platt said:
> To me, this paradox (along with many others) suggests there are limits
to
> logic and rationality, or as Paul Davies said, "But in the end a
rational
> explanation for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system
of
> logical truths is almost certainly impossible. We are barred from
ultimate
> knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning
that
> prompt us to seek an explanation in the first place. If we wish to
> progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of
'understanding'
> from that or rational explanation."
Paul:
I agree. I think the first trouble is that, as soon as you contemplate
such matters as "experience," and certainly when you try to capture it
in language, you are necessarily contemplating from the point of view of
the self. As a crude analogy, trying to avoid this is like dashing into
a room really quickly to see what it looks like without you being there.
I think the second trouble, as you note above, is that you cannot arrive
at the existence or understanding of something "conceptually unknown"
through a process of conceptual reasoning, it has to be acquired and
understood through experience. (In a similar vein, one cannot arrive at
an understanding of "sweetness" through a process of reason.) Yet, one
*can* reason *from* this understanding and relate it to the things that
can be acquired and understood through reason. This is what the MOQ
does.
Platt said:
> As you know, my idea for a "different understanding" relates to our
> intuitive attraction to "beauty."
Paul:
I think beauty can *sometimes* be strongly related to Dynamic Quality
but I recall the section in Lila about the primary metaphysical division
of the MOQ:
"When an American Indian goes into isolation and fasts to achieve a
vision, the vision he seeks is not a romantic understanding of the
surface beauty of the world. Neither is it a vision of the world's
classic intellectual form. It is something else." [Lila, Ch.9]
cheers
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 14 2004 - 09:21:40 BST