Please notice the difference between the following statements. (1) Things do not exist inherently or independently. (2) Things do not exist. The first statement makes a negative claim about the nature of things. It qualifies the existence of things by denying that they are permanent or essential or that they exist in isolation from each other, that they are discrete, discontinuous entities in themselves. The second statement simply denies any kind of existence at all. The first statement pushes back against Platonism, essentialism, objectivity and other forms of reification. The second statement far more drastic, maybe even ridiculous. The aspirin I'm about to take may not have anything like an independent or inherent existence but I fully expect that it really will relieve my pain. And I stop at red lights too, despite the fact that it's JUST a conventional reality. We can reject the metaphysical premise behind scientific materialism and still be afraid whenever anyone ever points a gun at us. There are concrete realities and practical consequences that can't just be sweep under the rug, or shrugged off with asce tic indifference. The MOQ is not some magic chant that makes the world dissolve into misty dreams. Yes, the mysticism and the Zen are very, very important central elements. But it's also about fixing things and the good cuts of meat. It's also a form of pragmatism that says our normal, conventional reality cannot function without quality. Remember that thought experiment in ZAMM wherein Pirsig takes us through a grocery store with no quality and how drastically that was changed? The title of ZAMM is just about enough to let you know that it's aimed at a kind of re-enchantment of the ordinary, finding the Buddha in the gears of bike or, as James would put it, returning philosophy to the earth of things. It is decidedly NOT otherworldly. Don't you think? Even its mysticism is NOT otherworldly. Don't you think? And what other reality do we ever have? I think it would be best to reject the existence of reality as we understand it conventionally and conceptually only between meals and never while you're driving.
> Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 11:18:58 -0400 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will > > > Marsha: > > I un-ask the question. Wherever those preferences lie, they do not > > inherently exist. > > > Steve: > The MOQ says that the only things that exist are such preferences > (patterns of value). Locating such preferences in a subject is an > inference from the preferences, so the subject borrows any existence > it can be thought of as having from the patterns of preference from > which it is inferred. There is no "I" that stands out side of patterns > of value (except for the capacity for patterns to change). In other > words, what you are (and what a rock or tree or thunderstorm is) is > collection of likes and dislikes, loves and hates, desires and > aversions. When you peal that onion there is only emptiness (DQ). > 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 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
