From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jul 21 2004 - 19:01:31 BST
Paul
> 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.
DM: I think this pretty much makes clear the reality of transcendence that
pours into experience as described by the MOQ. Experience is discovery
and a learning process of understanding. Or Quality as the holistic and
always,
to some extent, elusive term. Others might say god. One problem with the
quality
term is that it does not imply any form of awareness or agency. Yet DQ has
an active
aspect and in making good choices/creations/emergent forms of SQ an
intelligent one.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 1:02 AM
Subject: MD the metaphysics of self-interest
> Hi Paul
>
> PH:
> > > 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.
>
> "Experiencing is part of the conceptually unknown" reminded me of an
> anonymous quote I picked up some time ago that said, "Reality is what's
> happening while you're reading this."
>
> It also reminded me of the following from Pirsig:
>
> "In all sexual selection, Lila chooses, Dynamically, the individual she
> wants to project into the future. If he excites her sense of Quality she
> joins him to perpetuate him into another generation, and he lives on. But
> if he's unable to convince her of his Quality-if he's sick or deformed or
> unable to satisfy her in some way- she refuses to join him and his
> deformity is not carried on." (LIla, 15)
>
> Here Pirsig connects "sense of " with Dynamic Quality which I take to mean
> the same as "intuition" or an "spontaneous feeling," that is, without any
> "conceptions" on Lila's part.
>
> Focusing on the words "sense of" as a synonym for pure or non-conceptual
> experience I began to list the experiences we have a "sense of " that, as
> they are experienced, can occur without concepts of any kind, such as:
>
> Sense of balance, of awe, of comfort, of duty, of expectation, of
> fairness, of harmony, of humor, of purpose, of satisfaction, of
> significance, of tension, of danger, of wonder, etc., etc.
>
> In other words, while pure experience is non-conceptual (part of the
> conceptually unknown), it nevertheless plays an active role in what it
> feels like to be a human being (a sense of life).
>
> Of course, many non-conceptual senses can be attributed to the biological
> level, i.e., instincts. My cat has an obvious sense of danger and a sense
> of pleasure plus senses I can only guess at. But I doubt if he has a sense
> of beauty or of humor. Looking at evolution from the point of view of the
> capacity to experience, one could argue that what has evolved is not so
> much the depth of physical structures as measured by greater complexity
> but
> breadth of the psyche as measured by a greater range non-conceptual
> experiences.
>
> Paul
> > 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.
>
> Acquiring "understanding" through experience is what the practices of Zen
> Buddhism try to achieve, although whether such practices are necessary
> seems debatable. As one sage put it, "Your everyday ordinary awareness.
> That is the Tao."
>
> Anyway, what I'm trying to do, like the MOQ, is to relate non-conceptual
> understanding to what can be understood through reason. Do you think the
> thoughts expressed here have any potential to do that, or is this a
> tangent
> best left to fizzle out due to lack of grounding in agreement with
> experience, logical consistency, and economy of explanation? In other
> words, is "sense of" helpful in describing Quality, the indescribable?
>
> Best,
> Platt
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Wed Jul 21 2004 - 20:12:23 BST