On Thursday 12 March 2009 Andre writes to ..and all, > Krimel says: > I agree completely here. It seems to me that Platt and dmb are > attempting to read choice and intention into even the inorganic > level. I don't see how this differs from theology in the least. > Platt sneers a chance but at least,acknowledges some kind of > vague theological convictions. Dave, just pretends that whatever > it is he is saying, it is not theology. > > Andre: > A few posts ago I quoted Pirsig at lenght in the light of the > chemistry professor analogy. > First things first: DQ is not 'chance', nor 'intent' , nor > 'poof'' ,nor anything teleological in the theological sense. It > is the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum. > Secondly. positing a 'thread' as the 'ineffable' before anything > else..., positing this from growing up/and reflecting on 20th > Century, American society (and history in general), Pirsig saw a > morality, a something towards betterness, a something towards > freedom from, and he called this Quality. IMO Pirsig also called the process toward ³a something toward betterness,² evolution in a hierarchy of four levels, MOQ. For myself I prefer an analogy to the tonal octave of seven levels. > This can only be done in hindsight. Because, as Pirsig says > himself, all our intellectualisations after the Q-experience are > based on analogues, memories and memories, analogues etc etc. > Again I ask, how do you tell the brujo, be it photon. atom,cell, > human being, intellectual pattern) from its counterpart? I am > sure there have been countless counterparts but the ones that > have 'survived' are what we have and see/experience ( perhaps not > appreciate [low quality] but that is beside the point). How can Dq, the undefined, participate in mentation? IMO Mentation proposes an order in existence of evolution and an order in manifestation of a morality based on evolution in which DQ does participate.
Joe > Pirsig also stating that the MoQ starts with sentience, can be understood in > the way that pre-sentience responses to DQ followed strict sets of, what we > have identified as 'laws'( of quantum physics [mathematics] of physics etc), > this changes with sentients , our freedom to interpret DQ became greater ( > the strict laws of perish or survive do not apply so much anymore), it did > not simply entail a choice between survival or not...we are far more > advanced that this. > What I am getting at is that DQ does't do anything. WE respond to it as we > see fit and this depends on our static patterns; our vested interests, how > much we have to lose or gain in our isolated psychic cells, and the sizes of > our bankaccounts, and the celebrity/or not connections we have with God, > Buddha, Paul Newman or the man/woman next door. That makes the difference.. > We have the intellectual choice, but are very much torn between choices > based on biological and or social patterns of value. > > Bottom line is: the choice is ours, and DQ has no influence in/on this. It > only suggests that we act morally, i.e in harmony. > > For what it is worth. > Andre > 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/ On 3/12/09 12:18 PM, "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Krimel,Arlo,Platt dmb and all, > > Krimel says: > I agree completely here. It seems to me that Platt and dmb are attempting to > read choice and intention into even the inorganic level. I don't see how > this differs from theology in the least. Platt sneers a chance but at least > acknowledges some kind of vague theological convictions. Dave, just pretends > that whatever it is he is saying, it is not theology. > > Andre: > A few posts ago I quoted Pirsig at lenght in the light of the chemistry > professor analogy. > First things first: DQ is not 'chance', nor 'intent' , nor 'poof'' ,nor > anything teleological in the theological sense. It is the undifferentiated > aesthetic continuum. > Secondly. positing a 'thread' as the 'ineffable' before anything else..., > positing this from growing up/and reflecting on 20th Century, American > society (and history in general), Pirsig saw a morality, a something towards > betterness, a something towards freedom from, and he called this Quality.. > > This can only be done in hindsight. Because, as Pirsig says himself, all our > intellectualisations after the Q-experience are based on analogues, memories > and memories, analogues etc etc. > Again I ask, how do you tell the brujo, be it photon. atom,cell, human > being, intellectual pattern) from its counterpart? I am sure there have > been countless counterparts but the ones that have 'survived' are what we > have and see/experience ( perhaps not appreciate [low quality] but that is > beside the point). > > Pirsig also stating that the MoQ starts with sentience, can be understood in > the way that pre-sentience responses to DQ followed strict sets of, what we > have identified as 'laws'( of quantum physics [mathematics] of physics etc), > this changes with sentients , our freedom to interpret DQ became greater ( > the strict laws of perish or survive do not apply so much anymore), it did > not simply entail a choice between survival or not...we are far more > advanced that this. > What I am getting at is that DQ does't do anything. WE respond to it as we > see fit and this depends on our static patterns; our vested interests, how > much we have to lose or gain in our isolated psychic cells, and the sizes of > our bankaccounts, and the celebrity/or not connections we have with God, > Buddha, Paul Newman or the man/woman next door. That makes the difference.. > We have the intellectual choice, but are very much torn between choices > based on biological and or social patterns of value. > > Bottom line is: the choice is ours, and DQ has no influence in/on this. It > only suggests that we act morally, i.e in harmony. > > For what it is worth. > Andre > 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/
