On 2/21/08 2:25 PM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Joseph --
>
>
> To my suggestion that we nail down the basics before entangling ourselves in
> extrapolated conclusions, you replied:
>
>> Yes, I am game, but our confusion may not sit well
>> with others. Also what rules apply? As a start I repost
>> from Feb 2 to get your reaction:
>
> Does any new twist or idea introduced in this forum "sit well with others?
> I say, hang the rules! The goal here, as I see it, is for the participants
> to hold intelligent discourse on their disparate concepts of reality as they
> may relate the MoQ. To communicate ideas effectively one should aim for
> clarity. This usually means defining all special terms, particularly words
> that are intended to connote something other than implied by common usage.
Horse makes possible this discussion, for which I thank him very much! I do
not think a cavalier attitude "hang the rules" to be a good start. If this
is a part of your ontology, I fear the worst.
>> I have been reading from: Psychological Commentaries
>> On the Teaching of G.I. Gurdjieff and P. D. Ouspensky by
>> Maurice Nicoll. Vol I, p 48.
>> At one time Nicoll was one of Jung¹s students.
>>
>> "Man stands between two--an external visible world that enters
>> the senses and is shared by everyone: and an internal world that
>> none of his senses meets, which is shared by no one--that is, the
>> approach to it is uniquely individual, for although all the people in
>> the world can observe you, only you can observe yourself. This
>> Internal world is the second 'reality¹, and is invisible.
>>
>> "If you doubt that this second reality exists ask yourself the question:
>> Are my thoughts, feelings, sensations, my fears, hopes,
>> disappointments, my joys, my desires, my sorrows, real to me?
>> If, of course, you say that they are not real, and that only the table
>> and the house that you can see with your outer eyes are real, then
>> 'self-observation¹ will have no meaning to you. Let me ask you: in
>> which world of reality do you live and have your being? In the
>> world outside you, revealed by your senses, or in the world no
>> one sees, and only you can observe--this inner world? I think you
>> will agree that it is in this inner world that you really live all the
>> time,
>> and feel and suffer."
>
> Yes, I have read Ouspensky's "New Model of the Universe" and am familiar
> with the multi-universe concept advanced by New Age Spiritualism. This
> introspective passage seems to be stressing the difference between
> self-awareness and objective experience. Since the self is the cognizant
> locus of thought, feelings, and values, all external phenomena are
> experienced relative to the self. I have no problem with this analysis, as
> far as it goes.
My own background is 6 years formal study of Thomistic philosophy in a
monastery. I was also taken with "The City of God" by Augustine. I have
studied the thought of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky in a group for 4 years, and
on my own for 20 years. I have posted on MOQ discuss for the last 6 years.
I am impressed with the openness and "smarts" of the posters. I am a
retired self-employed plumber by trade.
>> IMO Pirsig would place dq/sq only in this inner world, MOQ,
>> which is more real than SOM, by including the internal as well
>> as the external.
>
> I think the terms "inner" and "outer" equate to "subject" and :object" in
> the MoQ, except that Pirsig does not regard them as dual "realities" or
> entities, but as "patterns" of Quality. This effectively eliminates
> self-consciousness as a "second reality" in his ontology. In other words,
> Pirsig does not acknowledge thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc., as
> proprietary to a self. They are merely social or intellectual patterns of
> Quality experienced (latched onto?) by the biological organism, while the
> observing self is also only an abstracted pattern.
I disagree that in Pirsig's thought "patterns" and "realities" are disparate
entities inasmuch as Qualities are values in existence. IMO as I read
Pirsig I find self-consciousness, proprietary-awareness of thoughts,
feelings, sensations as the structure of the social level. SOL is the
structure of the intellectual level.
> The most "real" thing in the universe, for each of us, is the "I" which
> perceives it. In that sense, I am in agreement with Gurdjieff and
> Ouspensky, rather than with Pirsig who dismisses selfness. However, I do
> not believe in an ever-present multi-dimensional universe as the source or
> cause of my being aware. Instead, I believe physical reality is the
> "affect" of my differentiated awareness. I attribute conscious awareness as
> the sensible contingent of a dichotomy whose complement is beingness. This
> dichotomy is created by a negation which divides sensibility from the
> primary source (Essence) and holds value in common between them. (The
> concept of a primary source is also dismissed by Pirsig.)
In the writings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky I read more about the mechanical
"I" which can evolve to a conscious "I". IMO you misread Pirsig by
attributing to him a dismissal of selfness. His struggle is self. IMO your
description of physical reality being based in awareness has no foundation
and is not real. I do not agree with your concept that "conscious awareness"
is a sensible contingent. IMO "conscious awareness" is the quality of
evolution to the social level. Oops Evolution! A value in existence.
> Still not sure where you're coming from, Joe. I suspect you're intrigued in
> some way by Ouspensky's ideas and are using me as a sounding board or
> intermediary versus the MoQ and Essentialism. Since this can cause
> confusion, I would prefer that you reveal your philosophy in its own
> (defined) terms, and hold other philosophies in abeyance until the
> fundamental concepts are understood.
>
> Thanks for bearing with me.
>
> Regards,
> Ham
>
Thanks, Ham
Joe
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/
