Re: MD Reality and observation

[rich pretti]

'ear
my
fellow
intellectual
construction
workers'
:

>ROGER:
>I find it impossible to believe that atoms or particles exist (apart >from) 
>our models. In fact, modern science came to the same >conclusion about 75 
>years ago. Now I would agree that there is >REALITY beyond >human 
>perception (but I am not sure). I would not >call this REALITY "something", 
>I would call it "being" >or "becoming", or like David," the cusp between 
>chaos and matter," >or like RMP, "DQ".

  Rog... aren't 'being', 'becoming', 'cusps' and 'DQ' "something"? I don't 
mean some-"thing" in the sense of a physical or mental subject or object, 
but in the sense of a "real existent". Pirsig is quite intent on letting the 
world know, isn't he, that not only is 'DQ' something, it is EVERYTHING - or 
at least "the source of". Even potentiality is 'something'.

>The attributes become waves or particles or chairs or moons with
>observation/measurement. These are all intellectual constructs that >did 
>not even exist until we created them (Technically it would be >proper to 
>say that experience gained quality and created us and >them). Ultimate 
>REALITY is unconceptualizable (but not >unexperienceable). Science now 
>recognizes this.

  Isn't "one quarter" (the newest - and the best) of ultimate reality 
conceptualization (intellectualization) itself? - which only takes place 
because of 4-ish billion years of solar, terrestrial, floral and faunal 
inorganic, biological and social evolution! When I hear all this idealistic 
thinking, it seems so sad! Like there is a bone to be picked with anyone who 
dares be true to what not only the intellectually experienced component of 
their selves tell them (such as that, logically, reality is unknowable), but 
also what the AS VERY REAL INORGANIC, BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL components of 
their experience tell them...


  I ate a bowl of cheerios this morning.

  It felt great.

  Yes - I am absolutely positive it was a bowl of cheerios.

  Honey Nut.

  Can't start the day without 'em.

  Had I said I ate fruit loops, I'd be lying.

  Had I said "J'ai manger des cheerios ce matin" I would be referring to the 
SAME INO/BIO REALITY, with a different social pattern of value (excuse my 
French).


  I think it was Magnus who hit the MOQ right on the bottom (or is that 
button?) when he wrote that the moon may be understood as having it's 
reality created by observation, not when the definition of 'observation' is 
limited to -human- (social/intellectual pov's - subjective) observation, but 
when *any* interaction/relationship (=observation =experience) takes place 
between it (one collection of pov's) and something else, be it a telescope, 
a mathematical equation, a comet or an intelligent intergalactically 
hitch-hiking green-cheese-eating SOMnambulistic (hehheh) monkey.

  I think the difficulty lies in too strict adherence to P's Qualitative 
split. When you understand DQ to be *other* than spov's, you've hatched a 
platypal egg. We musn't forget that the essence of Zen, Tao, MoQ, is that 
reality is *non-dual*. This means that seriously making a division between 
our intellectual patterns and DQ, and calling ino, bio and (soc?) patterns 
unreal or only half-real is invalid. At least in "the ultimate 'mystic' 
sense".

  But fuck the mystics, anyways. What do they know? Obviously not a hell of 
a lot, considering the wholesale destruction of the intellect which many 
prescribe. The most beautiful work of God (DQ) yet created, and we're 
supposed to... juice it?


>Physicist James Jeans wrote: "The outstanding achievement of 20th >Century 
>physics is.... the general recognition that we are not yet >in contact with 
>ultimate reality".

  What an awful statement! We are ultimate reality! Ultimate reality, in 
fact, (DQ) is ALL that we are in contact with. Ultimate reality is not some 
great theologically other Big-Daddy Warbucks floating on a cloud of titties 
beyond a set of Golden Gates... it is this.


    NOw. and Here.
        Hear?

>So, in brief, WE DO NOT BELONG TO THIS MATERIAL WORLD THAT SCIENCE 
> >CONSTRUCTS FOR US." (emphasis added) So, to wrap up my position, I >would 
>say that ULTIMATE REALITY is unknowable but is experience->able. In fact it 
>is experience itself. However, I am repulsed by >the "I am the Entire 
>F*&%#ing Universe" notion. I don't believe it >at all.

  To wrap my sandwich (please excuse any tastes which you intellectually 
construct to be aggressive, crude, etc... I'm tired and it's late and I've 
been arguing with my cousin (nuclear physics 4th year student) about just 
these ideas all night...), I think that 'ULTIMATE REALITY' ***IS*** 
intellectual knowledge, which comes three other aspects of 'ULTIMATE 
REALITY':- a social language, uttered by a biological vocal system in a 
certain time and place...

  As to the question of experience and consciousness... mine seems to change 
to quickly to get a good hold of what it is... pending further notice...

>>But then again, I am sure I am wrong,
>Roger

  Silly Goose! Of course you're right, because what you wrote had quality, 
your intent was good, you have gumption, good morals...

  Although, you might not exist.

Sincerely,




































                          (gone fishin')







______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]