On 20 Jun 2010 at 22:56, Dan Glover wrote: > >Platt: > > The only way to avoid the S/O fall out from DQ is to understand > > (mystically) > > that there's no division between me and what I perceive, i.e., what I > > perceive > > is actually I-perceiving. Otherwise, all perceptions are something I have. > > Then > > I'm forced to say that I perceive myself. Now, who is this I that perceives > > myself? Another self -- a second self? And who has this perception of a > > second > > self? A third self? How many selves must I postulate? > > > > Yes, you're right to say that it's necessary to fall into SOM in order to > > define DQ. But, as Pirsig pointed out, "(SOM reasoning) doesn't tell us > > anything about the essence of the MOQ." (LC, Note 132). Likewise, > > perceiving DQ > > doesn't tell us anything about the essence of DQ. > > Dan: > > Okay, lets say we can't perceive Dynamic Quality. There are more no > surprises in life, nothing new under the sun. There is no hope for > better. There is no sense of awe at the sight of a sunrise, no > appreciation of art. No music. No poetry. Plenty of philosophy though, > and two plus two still equals four. > > Now tell me, do you really want to live in that kind of world?
Hi Dan, Since there's no separation between me and the world, I don't have much choice do I? And because the world is Quality I couldn't escape from it if I tried. So your hypothetical scenario is just that -- imaginary, based on the S/O perspective. Regards, Platt 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/md/archives.html
