Hello Ham,
At 03:54 AM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
Greetings, Marsha -
I hope you enjoyed your weekend at the beach. (I don't know where
you vacation, but I hear that the weather was great at the Jersey shore.)
Krimel "stepped in" for you in the meantime, informing me that you
have been "far too charitable" to me, considering my Hamish language
and "blue pill thinking" (whatever that means). He seems to find my
posts "a rich source of humor".
When we left off, you were contesting my observation that the
Pirsigians are "not content to accept existence for what it is -- a
self/other duality." You evidently thought I meant accepting certain
precepts about physical reality (e.g., a flat world) as scientifically true.
Language is a Fountain of Humor!
Based on what experience are you determining what it is or is not 'to
accept existence for what it is'? Based on what are you postulating
"a self/other duality"?
Let me change the language a bit. Was the world flat when
human beings experienced it (accepted existence for what it is)
as flat?
It is true that human beings experienced the earth as a flat plane
(within their field of vision), They also experienced the sun
rising and setting at the earth's horizon, as if circling the
earth. But experience can be deceptive, and their conclusions were
proved to be wrong by the evidence available to Science.
And Science can be proved wrong by the evidence of experience.
On the other hand, the relation of my awareness to the objects of my
experience is self-evident to me. There are no empirical
measurements or data whereby Science can disprove this self/other duality.
No Ham, I experience the conventional world conceptually
as my thinking self, not separate from it.
No, Marsha. You experience the objective world as an other to you.
There is direct experiencing, and then there is explanation based on
memory. Where one is explaining, one is not experiencing. (Endless
humor!!!)
Because you have been persuaded that your reality is the world,
that they are not separate, you've allowed your intellect to
contradict your experience.
Well, yes this is what happens. Intellect interferes with
experience; in the experience there is no thought of self and other.
The question you have to ask yourself is: Which of these
constructs is "true" and which is the illusion?
Constructs true? In what sense do you mean true?
Descartes concluded: "I think, therefore I exist." Marsha
concludes: The world exists, therefore I do not".
I never stated this conclusion. I would rather go with 'Not this, not that.'
[Ham, previously]:
Static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality" is
incomprehensible language to me.
[Marsha]:
For me, it is the best statement of Conventional Reality I
have ever heard. Goodness!
The best statement of reality you've ever heard? According to the
author, Quality = Value. If that's true, the meaning of this
quotation is essentially: Quality responds to Quality.
Sounds about right.
Language is analogy. Surprising isn't it, how much we can
use this shared language and NOT agree with each other. - EGO is
not a little pattern; the ego is the mistaken belief
that a controlling self that can own or disown its patterns. - If
I am experiencing the world fully what would be the need
of becoming? Becoming what? Tarzan? The King of the
World? If I am experiencing the world fully there is no interval
for becoming, no ego.
Ego is not a "belief"; it's the psychologist's term for self-esteem
or the need to be esteemed by others.
Is 'ego' a term with no corresponding conventional pattern? How then
did it come to conventional existence?
I don't know where you're going with your remarks about
"experiencing the world fully" and "the need of becoming". Does
anyone experience the world fully? By "world" do you mean
"reality". As someone recently told me, "I have trouble following
your unique metaphysical language."
I have never denied an external reality, only that it corresponds to
our patterns (thoughts) of it. Okay, my language is as useless as
language can be. ;-)
The remainder of your post is taken up lauding Pirsig for his
"tremendous" achievement in bringing East and West together. This
may be your "experience", but it certainly isn't mine. And since
the only justification you can come up with for denying the self is
your "static patterns" mantra, it's obvious that you want to deny
what is self-evident. Why should I wish to destroy your euphoria?
Meditation has been my experience, and is justification for my
statement about the self. There is no euphoria to destroy, but thank
you for the consideration.
I will say you've provided disturbing evidence that once
indoctrinated to the MoQ, there appears to be no turning back.
Enjoy your stay in Qualityland,
Ham
You are in Qualityland too. The only difference between us are
static patterns of value, but they are also how we are the similar.
Marsha
.
_____________
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/
