First, to all of you who have served in the U. S. Armed
Forces: Thank you!!!
Greetings Ham,
Your post has some interesting questions, and the answers will take
more time than I have available at the moment, since I'm on my way
out the door. Hopefully, it will be acceptable if I reply on
Tuesday. Have a nice holiday weekend.
Marsha
At 03:52 AM 5/23/2009, you wrote:
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/
.
_____________
The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
.
.
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/
