Andre: " To make a further step (backwards) it appears then that at the 'level' of this (pre-intellectual) Quality event we are united, we are One, and that, after the time lag, THIS notion gets overlaid with intellectualisations, divisions, appropriations, individuations of this Quality event as being unique and only for oneself. (and to be shared only at a price). "
This is a good thought and I would say it myself if I were better spoken. I don't see a conflict between the concepts of "unique I" and "we are One". I see a continuum between the dynamic whole and static granularity. We humans seem to have the ability to choose to traverse this continuum at will. Perhaps DQ and "I" are the opposite ends of our humanity. Thanks for your thoughts. ________________________________ From: Andre Broersen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:32:35 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Is it serious? John to Andre: you might be objectively right, Andre, but why go there?? Why would anyone choose non-existence? Andre: Hi John, I do not choose non-existence. I am tossing around the notion of the truth or falsity of the existence of a unique 'I'. As I tried to explain in my post to M K the differentiation between the 'I' and, by implication the 'Other' occurs after the Quality event...at the intellectual level. Pirsig talks about the importance of this 'time lag' between the 'instant of vision and instant of awareness'.(ZMM p 241) I am suggesting/ exploring the notion that this concept of an 'I' rests on intellectualisations. 'And any intellectually conceived object is always in the past and therefore unreal' (ZMM op.cit). Again, pronouns are useful but...we shouldn't make too big a deal about them . To make a further step (backwards) it appears then that at the 'level' of this (pre-intellectual) Quality event we are united, we are One, and that, after the time lag, THIS notion gets overlaid with intellectualisations, divisions, appropriations, individuations of this Quality event as being unique and only for oneself. (and to be shared only at a price). But underneath all that intellectual stuff there remains this nagging FEELING that we are not so very different from eachother (whether one is red, yellow, brown, black, white, whatever). That there are things that connect us as humanity, as one big family ( as Joseph Campbell describes it) I compare it a little to John and Sylvia's feeling early in ZMM when the narrator describes them following their 'natural feelings' which is what has set them against this, in their eyes, technological/ intellectual de-humanised world. (ZMM p17). Just some thoughts. 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/
