At 03:30 AM 5/11/2008, you wrote:
Marsha, Magnus, and All --
Marsha asked:
> What is a pattern?
Magnus answered:
> Anything not DQ.
> But the only thing these two answers really say is that
> reality is divided into patterns and non-patterns.
> What the MoQ has to add to this is that it is the most
> important division of all possible divisions.
[Marsha]:
> What can you say about patterns besides 'they are
> other than DQ'?
Not much. That's because patterns are said to be "made of" that ephemeral
stuff called "Quality". Pure Quality is not a thing, not an object, not a
subject, but an attribute. An attribute OF WHAT? Normally we would think
of quality as an attribute of a thing or event -- a measure of its
worth or of its
esthetic value relative to the observer. But not in the MoQ. There, DQ
hangs above us like a cornucopia of bonbons, the unrealized source of
eternal goodness. Can this be Reality?
But, if Magnus is right that the division of reality into patterns
is "the most important
division of all possible divisions," then it must be fundamental to
what we experience as reality. It must be a division of something
intrinsic to both the observing subject and its objective object, a
transcendent reality that holds the power to actualize
existence. Marsha's question above provides a three-word key to the
nature of this reality: "OTHER THAN DQ". In reality there is no
other; otherness is only what we experience. What we experience is
only a finite moment-to-moment reduction of the ultimate
reality. So that what Pirsig has given us is a Quality-based
scenario for experiential existence, not a metaphysical theory of Reality.
Forget about patterns for a moment. Whatever the fundamental
reality is, it cannot be "other than" ANYTHING. Back in the 15th
century the logician Cusanus
postulated his First Principle as the 'not-other', that ineffable
unity "to which
neither otherness nor multiplicity is opposed". That uncreated
unity, which is manifested only as patterns of beingness, is the
essential source of all difference. What Magnus calls the
fundamental "division" and Bo refers to as the "DQ/SQ split" is what
I "the negation of Essence".
But, as I've often said, it isn't the terms we use but the concept
we're trying to convey that's important. So, if you understand
Pirsig's term "Quality" to mean the primary uncreated not-other,
then you can understand what I mean by Essence. It's the primary
source that actualizes 'difference' by splitting or dividing
subjective awareness from objective otherness. Difference creates
the dichotomy 'being-aware' which makes experience possible. It is
the Value of Essence (Quality?) that we experientially "pattern" as
differentiated otherness. But although we call these relational
patterns Existence, and experience them as our self's 'other', in
Reality there is no other, no pattern, no division, no difference,
but only the ineffable unity by whatever name you choose to call it.
Does this give you a better understanding of the Essential ontology
and how it differs from the MoQ?
Happy Mother's Day,
Ham
Greetings Ham,
I am hovering between my fledgling understanding of Buddhist
epistemology and the MOQ. I want to drift with the winds aloft for a
while. But there has always been in your 'not other' something
calling for attention. I find it also in
'opposite-from-non-( )'. Yesterday morning it was
'opposite-from-non-life'. There was little room for doubt. Even
though I find the Eastern philosophies more compatible with my
thinking, I am looking forward to returning to your book. There is a
relationship between the two. Maybe. Well, I am curious.
Thank you for the Mother's Day greeting.
Marsha
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...
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/
