> [Platt] > Is the sun real? Is the wind real? Is a germ > real? I would say yes. What say you? > > [Arlo] > I would say they are inorganic and/or biological > patterns that we "know" via intellectual patterns > we use to describe our experience with them.
So are they real or not? A yes or no will suffice. I assume inorganic/biological patterns, the intellectual patterns and our experience with them are all real. Right? > [Platt] > Yes, dreams are illusions. A dollar in my pocket > is real. Myself is real. Otherwise who dreams? > Who has dollars? Who has pockets? Without the self, nothing. No "thing." > > [Arlo] > How are dreams "illusions", but memories of the > past "real"? Dreams contain no evidence of existence except to the dreamer. Memories of the past can be verified by tangible evidence. >The "self" is a thought, albeit it a > "meta-thought", that gives order and structure to > our categorized experiences, without which we'd > be in a constant stream of immediate experience. > As such, the "self" has a real, pragmatic value. > But, as I've said, the "self" does not hold some > "ueber-reality" apart from dreams, memories, > thoughts, or ideas. It is as "real" as they are, but also as "illusory". Again the question: How can something be both real and illusory simultaneously? > This is what Einstein meant when he said, ""A > human being is a part of a whole, called by us > _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He > experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as > something separated from the rest... a kind of > optical delusion of his consciousness. This > delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting > us to our personal desires and to affection for a > few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to > free ourselves from this prison by widening our > circle of compassion to embrace all living > creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." (Einstein) Is what he said illusory? But, I have no problem with subject and object as one simply because logically you cannot have many without one. > Subject (selves) and objects are brought into > concurrent, simultaneous existence by the Quality > Event. Indeed, Pirsig reminds us that the > illusion of "separateness" comes only after, > "Phædrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality > perception, or not even perception, at the moment > of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is > no object. There is only a sense of Quality that > produces a later awareness of subjects and > objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject > and object are identical." (ZMM). Yes, but he divides quality into some things are better than others. The "sense of Quality" is spread out on a spectrum from good to bad. As John Wooden Leg opined, "That's a good dog." No matter how you slice it, a metaphysics requires division. > This is what I mean when I say the "self" is > illusory, and that ties together Einstein's > thinking with Pirsig's. The separateness we > experience is the illusion, and hence the "self" > as some sort of "forever-apart" reality in-itself > is illusion. But, this illusion has significant > pragmatic ramifications for allowing "us" to > "act" in a way that transforms the world as-experienced. So long as the "self" has a unique DNA and fingerprint unlike any other self, it will be considered real, not an illusion, by those who can tell the difference between what's real and what's not. > [Platt] > Where I come from, "always" is an absolute. And > to say "truth is not an absolute" is an absolute and thus > self-contradictory. > > [Arlo] > And, a road you act once again naively shocked to > see, paradox, contradiction and recursion lie at > the heart of any metaphorical system. It is > absolutely unavoidable. All it "proves" is that > language and reason are mirrors of experience, > unavoidably distorted reflections. And we can > move on pragmatically making use of the tools we > have, but we have to, in the final analysis, > recognize that are just that... "tools". Yes, real tools -- not illusory. Logic and language are our tools of survival. I presume you are interested that "reality." Sure we eventually run into paradox. As I've said from the beginning, that's when beauty (Pirsig's harmony) comes in. > [Platt] > Do you deny that intellect and art (human > characteristics) are at the top of Pirsig's moral hierarchy? > > [Arlo] > Of course "intellectual patterns" are atop > Pirsig's hierarchy of static patterns. But what I > see as the real value to Quality is in its final > dissolution of the "self" and "thing" into a moment of "grooving". An alcoholic blackout or drug-induced trip is nirvana? Give me a break. > "Phædrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality > perception, or not even perception, at the moment > of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is > no object. There is only a sense of Quality that > produces a later awareness of subjects and > objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject > and object are identical. This is the tat tvam > asi truth of the Upanishads, but it's also > reflected in modern street argot. "Getting with > it," "digging it," "grooving on it" are all slang > reflections of this identity." (Pirsig) Source? Remember what Pirsig had to say about "modern" flower children -- blowing their minds, destroying their ability to reason. Not an attractive scene in the "pragmatic" world of Penn State. > [Platt] > Do you deny that Pirsig cites freedom as the highest moral value? > > [Arlo] > I would say that I agree with Pirsig that > "freedom" is itself simply "a purely negative > goal". Pirsig writes in the afterward to ZMM, > "This book offers another, more serious > alternative to material success. It's not so much > an alternative as an expansion of the meaning of > "success" to something larger than just getting a > good job and staying out of trouble. And also > something larger than mere freedom." (Pirsig) > > And I think if the MOQ teaches us anything, its > that "freedom" is born out of "order". The two > MUST be in balance. And, I side with the MOQ's > idea that our concepts are always > culturally-rooted. The Native Americans (to use a > broad generality) would likely see many aspects > of our modern lives as "unfree". We are quatered > off from "private property", while they could > roam, swim, hunt and fish wherever they so chose. > The modern notion that "freedom" is inherently > tied with material acquisition is nonsense. I'm not surprised that you view the modern notion of freedom and property ownership with pronounced indifference. Also, remember that Pirsig didn't think Indians could survive very long in the modern world. I hope you are not recommending a return to buffalo hunting, scalping and rain dancing. > [Platt] > Then Pirsig must boggle your mind. "The tests of > truth are logical consistency, agreement with > experience, and economy of explanation. The > Metaphysics of Quality satisfies these." (Lila, 8) > > [Arlo] > And yet its central term is undefined. Just > listen to Ham's critiques, the MOQ is not a > wholly rational metaphysics. It is an attempt to > build some rational understanding around a mystic and undefinable "thing". Yes, "rational understanding," not nonsensical dreaming or loony illusions. The MOQ is nothing if not down to earth and relative to everyday living. > [Platt] > Pirsig influenced by Buddhism? Yes. The MOQ a Buddhist philosophy? No. > > [Arlo] > The central tenants of the MOQ are drawn from, > and are tied to, Zen Buddhism. While it is not a > "Buddhist philosophy" in the sense that most > Buddhists don't bother with metaphysics, it > nonetheless begins with the primary notion of > Quality as Buddha and moves from there. At last, agreement. Not a Buddhist philosophy. As for equating Quality with Buddha, and then dividing Buddha into static Buddha and Dynamic Buddha, I doubt if many Buddhists would agree with that split or even agree that the world is a moral order. As far as I can tell, Buddhism is not concerned with things of this world. > I'm excising all your political and distortive > bullshit. If you really want to get into it, > create a "Why the rhetoric 'libs hate freedom' is > a moronic con" thread, or perhaps "Why I am > suddenly squalking 'tactics of moveon.org' like a > good parrot" thread. I'll think about contributing. Thanks. I'll pass. I only reply when you throw some of your Marxist crap and moveon.org character assassination into an otherwise reasonable discussion. . Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
