Ham Priday, you said: >You also say "our innermost awareness is >DQ." Yet, we are only aware as individuals, whereas DQ is not >individualized (differentiated). If the conscious individual is not the >subject of objective experience, why is the SOM so persistent a notion that >Pirsig has taken great pains to explain it away?
I said that DQ is our innermost awareness because awareness, not the physical universe, is fundamental to the universe. DQ and SQ is in many respects similar to the Yogic dichotomy of Purusa (the watcher) and Prakrti (nature/universe). This is not a mind/body division, because in Hindu thought mind is a part of body. It is awareness that is responsible for our "feeling of being aware", it is not the mind. The mind is a mere phenomenon happening in the awareness. DQ is not individualised. When I talked of "*our* innermost awareness", I spoke on two different levels, because in this state of mind of worldly phenomenon we must admit plurality, whereas when we are one with DQ (which is the innermost awareness), we lose all sense of plurality. Then there is no individuality, and you realise that you are DQ, not in the sense of you vs the others but in the sense that you are the all-pervading seer. >If judging what is good is judging what is moral, then morality exists only >for one who does the judging. We return to the question of the tree in the forest. I have made such a statement (morals exist by themselves) because the MoQ model assumes so. It tells us that our judgments are intellectual patterns of static quality. Perhaps it would be more insightful here to relate this with recursion. Akshay On 10/01/2008, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Greetings, Akshay -- > > > > Everything "originates" from Dynamic Quality, which I interpret to be > > pure consciousness/awareness. The mind is not conscious. The mind > > is a complex static pattern from which our experience comes. Our > > innermost awareness is DQ. Even inorganic matter has consciousness, > > rather, it is "made up" of consciousness (originating from it). The only > > difference between us and rocks is that we have more complex structures > > because of which our unique experience of reality is possible. > > > > Morals are not *just* subjective. The truth is that we cannot > > *decide* morals, because they exist by themselves, they are the > > ones who have landed us here trying to *decide* what is good > > and what is not, we can only discover them. It is our nature > > ultimately that is morals, because it is nothing but our value system. > > However accurately you may have interpreted Pirsig's metaphysical system, > your analysis clearly demonstrates what's wrong with it. It has no soul, > no cognizant "agent". > > You say "the mind is not conscious", but only "a complex static pattern." > Yet, somehow, it is this static pattern that makes our experience sensible > (aware). If conscious awareness isn't primary to experience, then I have > misconstrued the MoQ ontology. You also say "our innermost awareness is > DQ." Yet, we are only aware as individuals, whereas DQ is not > individualized (differentiated). If the conscious individual is not the > subject of objective experience, why is the SOM so persistent a notion > that > Pirsig has taken great pains to explain it away? > > Then you suggest that rocks have consciousness "originating from" organic > matter. If you mean to say that consciousness "creates" inorganic matter, > I > can accept that. But only if consciousness is primary to the objects it > constructs. Dynamic Quality is what you and Pirsig claim is primary, i.e > ., > the creative source. Which means that this undifferentiated source is by > some strange logic responsible for differentiated experience. Something > is > askew in this epistemology. > > More troublesome to me, however, is the idea that "morals exist by > themselves", that "morals have landed us here trying to decide what is > good". > If judging what is good is judging what is moral, then morality exists > only > for one who does the judging. It does not exist without the judging, and > thus cannot possibly have "landed us here". > > Wouldn't it make more teological sense to say that some creative source > put us here to become conscious of what is good (and bad), to realize > individually the value of the Whole as manifested in its parts? > Or, as I've expressed it, to make Value aware of its essential source? > > Just a thought. > > Regards, > Ham > > > 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/ > 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/
