Hello, Marsha --
I have always had trouble following your unique metaphysical language.
That doesn't surprise me. Describing a concept that isn't common to
experience requires uncommon terms. However, this needn't be an obstacle if
the terms are defined, (and I do provide a glossary).
At 03:03 PM 5/20/2009, you wrote:
[skipping to the "troublesome" statement]
Pirsigians like to talk philosophy by splitting hairs. They're not
content to accept existence for what it is -- a self/other duality, so
they've replaced duality with a tetrology of levels.
What do you mean by "accept existence for what it is"? Human beings once
perceived the world to be flat, were they correct? I think your
complaints in the above paragraph are
humorous considering the esoteric and confusing language
you use when presenting your Essence. Ever-changing,
interrelated and interconnected static patterns of value is
what we have to work with, not things-in-themselves.
Was the world flat when they perceived it to be flat? Actually, they didn't
perceive flatness, they deduced it. I don't perceive that Marsha is a
"thinking self" like me, I assume it. I do perceive the world as an "other"
to my thinking self. That is a self-evident fact to me, and I presume for
you, also. You may call it an "illusion", but it as an illusion of the
existence you and I share. "Static patterns of value responding to Dynamic
Quality" is incomprehensible language to me.
Yes, Ham, I agree with you that Difference is necessary. Viva la
Difference! It is the mistake of thinking that these
differences are somehow real instead of a convenience
evolved for survival. This misunderstanding seems to be
a maladaptation and the cause of much suffering.
I would say anything that is necessary for my survival is more than a
"convenience." It must be pretty "real", even if my life is an illusion.
If I thought food was a mere convenience rather than a necessity, that
misconception would indeed cause me much suffering.
I am considering your description of Sensibility and Being. They do seem
to be two functions of the self, the five senses
as sensual, and thought as becoming. It's the becoming that is
the troublesome ego which confuses itself (spov) for Reality.
Calling your self an "spov for Reality" is playing games with language. All
of existence is "becoming" from the individual's perspective. "Ego" is a
psychological construct that has more to do with one's attitude or drive
than with selfness. These word games are an easy way to skirt around the
concept of proprietary awareness and avoid referring to the subjective
"self" which defines it. Playing "Pirsig says" with words is using a kind
of dialectical Newspeak that enables you to forget the world you actually
experience.
Neither my view, nor your view, nor RMP's view is Absolute Truth, and
there is beauty in knowing that, don't you think?
There is beauty in poetry, music, art, and nature. But you're saying
there's beauty in not knowing the truth. Inasmuch as my quest is for Truth,
I don't find ignorance beautiful.
My relative opinion, though, is that the MOQ is a wonderful
step-forward world-view that brings together and East and West,
feminine & masculine, this and that, to point to an elegant and better
way.
It's a poetic thought, Marsha. But, aside from the fact that it makes you
feel good, what evidence do you have that thinking and talking this way is
"better" than logic, deduction, or metaphysical intuition? People who make
"feeling good" their life goal generally wind up uninformed, overspent, and
dependent. (They make good left-wing liberals, though.)
No Ham, you haven't given me any idea what you think is real about the
self. Where or what is this individuated agent other than Quality?
Beingness, selfness, and thought can be individuated. However, I can't
conceive of an individuated Quality. Can you? Sensibility (proprietary
awareness) is the essential self, not Quality.
Best wishes,
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/
