Ham
On 23 April you wrote:
> I hope you've recovered from your visit to the dentist.
Phhaarrrtly!
> I think that's a correct assessment of Pirsig's philosophy. And if you
> are pushing for a "transcendental" connection, I'm with you all the
> way. To define something is to differentiate it from everything else.
Defining may be to differentiate, but can we do anything else?
However, I have the impression that to most people around this
discussion defining means "irreal, subjective, in our minds only", in
contrast to an undefined (dynamic) but objective reality "out there".
And my contention is that this is SOM and (in MOQ's case) by
postulating the real chasm to be between the dynamic Quality and the
MOQ - not between DQ/DQ - Pirsig fell victim to the enemy he set out
to conquer.
But the people of this site are impossible to bring "to justice" they lift
themselves out of all corners they have painted themselves into by the
"Oriental Rope Trick".
> Ultimate reality cannot be defined because, as Cusanus said, it is
> neither an "other" nor is it opposed to any other. But just because
> it can't be defined doesn't mean that we have to reject it. Cusanus
> chose to call the undifferentiated source "the coincidence of all
> contrariety". For me, this was just the breakthrough needed for a
> metaphysics of Essence. (MoE??)
If your MoE's primary division is between an undifferentiated essence
and a differentiated such we agree, but - as said - in MOQ's case
Pirsig made the division between an undifferentiated Quality and the
theory about such a division - and was up to his neck in SOM.
> You and I are at odds with respect to the individuality of cognizant
> awareness and intellect, Bo, but you seem to agree with me that
> quality or value is always differentiated, hence does not qualify as
> the nature of the primary source. This is true no matter how we
> compartmentalize the levels of physical (i.e., experiential) reality.
If we are at odds or not ... let me try this and see if it rings bells. I start
with language. My thesis is that language must be suspended, making
it sound as if language is something secondary to what it is about is
SOM (Plato's shadows on the cave walls) And this applies to "mind"
and/or "man", these terms are variants of the language example.
> Since we are all SOMists
Well, this was my frustration, I mean that all who subscribe to the
above sketched fallacy are SOMists. Not those who see the SOL
("sun" in Scandinavian)
> by virtue of our experience in the world of finite being, I would like
> to explore your ideas as to what "deeper/higher" realm or level there
> may be. You once stated that intellect is the value of the S/O divide.
> Concepts like this suggest that there may be some common ground
> between us, and this short post may open an opportunity to bump heads.
Well, let's see your reaction to this my opening.
See you.
Bo
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/
