Mati, Ham, I am flipping out with happiness, because here is where it gets really interesting. Is anything real? NO, if you mean does it inherently exist? No. No. No! A pattern is not an independently existing thing-in-itself. Patterns conventionally exist like the Buddhists suggest. Patterns are provisionally accepted conceptual constructs built on experience. I have no problem with this. It is a wonder. It's always been the understanding of patterns rather than the evolutionary aspect of the MoQ levels that I've found profound.
I've stated plainly that I agree with Bo on two aspects of his argument: the Intellectual Level being the subject/object level, and the MoQ being a major separation with the Intellectual Level representing a new level, a new perspective. But I can also agree with what Bo has been saying about the split from the Social Level creating the Intellectual Level occurring with the early Greeks, "Aristotle's insistence on the Law of Non-Contradiction." and the rational/irrational split. So I agree with _three_ points of Bo's argument. As far as what is beyond all patterns, DQ or Ultimate Reality? I am quite comfortable with indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, and the possibility of the creation of a better pattern always available. I could go on and on and on... Like it's all projection and if you want to make a better world steadfastly project betterness. And like the 'self' is not 'real' either but projection. But may this is for some too much too accept. Who controls the projections??? There is not television in my home... Thank you. Marsha -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of KAYE PALM-LEIS Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Uncertainty Marsha, You asked, > I really do wonder what it must be like when you are immersed in Quantum > theory and really believe it is "real"? I believe your question is closely aligned with a key question that isn't asked often enough and IMO is a center fulcrum of the discussion related to MOQ, intellect and SOL, "Is it real?" . Bo mentioned that "This "what is it like to be ..." is another conundrums that SOM imposes....." This is true but I think it is so important to understand that this vital question of, "is it real" is what started the whole intellect business and got us to where we are. I am reminded in ZMM when Pirsig writes about Sylivia's observation about the people on the road. "They look so lost". I have reread that chapter and thought Pirsig directly connected this question of "what is real" and people feeling lost. I couldn't find it. The point he does get at is is that for the most part people don't ask that question about if it is real because the answer is somehow lost in objective and subject world, a world they know so little about but impacts them so much. As mention many times before I am in agreement with Bo's SOL idea. One of the other questions, is when intellect came into play. This is where Pirsig notes that Arisitotle S/O split as a likely period of time when intellect is recognized. When I would read about the early Greek philosophers, they too were asking the same question about what is real. It is the essential metaphysical question. Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Empedocles,Anaxagoras and other Greek philosophers of the time were asking that very question, what is real. This was a time when the social level dominated the world and if you asked somebody if something was real they could only really defer to the social constructs of the day, their gods to answer the those questions. These Greek philosophers intuitively knew that that didn't seem to make sense. There was an objective world that seemed separate from the social order of things. Yet.... they didn't know how to explain reality that was beholden to the social order of the time. Now Aristotles proposes the S/O split. It is fairly neat metaphysical construct and both the subjective and objective realities can be accounted for. I know that SOM has gotten a bad rap and from a metaphycial perspective it certainly had its short comings, Yet for 2500 years it has served us so well until the obvious metaphysical limitations where identified and not ignored. The issue with SOM is that it did a realitively good job capturing a lot of what was real, but there was a lot that SOM couldn't capture, namely quality. That was the struggle and burden that Pirsig took on and provided us with MOQ. MOQ is a totally a different Metaphysical perspective that clarifies the world around us and could handle the question of the reality of quality. One of the problems that MD seems to understand is that fundamental difference between MOQ and S/O (SOM) in the context of intellect. Bo's constantly reminds us, almost to the point of nausium, that when we fail to understand that MOQ and S/O (SOM) are metaphysically different worlds, this is often the culprit of SOM. When we cry foul that MOQ and SOM are both intellect, we forget that comes from the subjective prospective that was born from SOM. MOQ liberates us from that SOM point that goes nowhere. The crux seems to be that nobody feels really imprisoned by SOM at its core, and naturally use the the context of "I" in the subjective realm to account the world around us. That is ok until start asking questions like, "is it real". Is quality real? Sure it is, and we start from our subjective realm that was born from SOM to intuitively answer the question. But soon the question gets bogged down in its (SOM) limitations. The next question is "Intellect" real? Yup.... MOQ says it is real, we basically know it is real but we seem to start from the same subjective realm, born from SOM, to answer the question. Just like quality the question, it gets bogged down for the same reason. We tend to rectify this question with "thinking"(process) or "thought" (product) from a subjective perspective as an answer to the question of intellect. We need to step away from the subjective realm and approach it from a strictly metaphysical realm, devoid of the subjective tethers of SOM to really see and understand what is going on. Bo seems to try to cut those tethers for us, but for each one he seems to cut another appears. Hmmmm...... a thankless job. Good thing he sees this as his passion and not a job. And a final point is that MOQ gives us the dignity to ask the question of, "is it real" and provide us a better foundation to answer the question. Respectfully submitted, Mati 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/
