On May 11, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
> Marsha to Arlo:
>
> But this is a list devoted to metaphysics - the nature of reality -
> so bottom line: there is no-thingness to know and no-self to know it...
>
> Bo and Platt leave and everybody forgets that SOM has a major flaw.
>
> Andre:
> The flaw lies with you Marsha. When you say 'there is no-thingness to know
> and no-self to know it' you are merely forgetting what this MOQ is about. As
> Phaedrus argues: "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the
> sense that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of
> these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or
> there isn't any metaphysics". (LILA, p 66).
Marsha:
Yes.
> Andare:
> You are once again confusing DQ with sq. Metaphysics is a statement, an idea
> about the nature of reality and not reality itself.
No confusion involved
"Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the
indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or
static:.
In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and
contingency belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by also
saying that all things ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma or
that within the heart of every conditioned entity (as its core, as its
true
essence, as its very real nature) there is the indeterminate dharma.
While the one expresses the transcendence of the ultimate reality,
the other speaks of its immanence. The one says that the ultimate
reality is not an entity apart and wholly removed from the determinate,
but is the real nature of the determinate itself.
Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types of truth; the
‘static’ conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and the ‘Dynamic’ ultimate truth
(paramattha-sacca)."
(McWatt,f Anthony, 'AN INTRODUCTION TO ROBERT PIRSIG’S METAPHYSICS OF
QUALITY', P. 102)
> Andre:
> And as far as your second statement is concerned: this MOQ IS an intellectual
> expression of Phaedrus' expansion of rationality so hard fought for and
> argued for in ZMM and worked out in a metaphysical framework in LILA.
And?
> Andre:
> This MOQ is an attempt at a correction of this flaw. It is something you
> still don't seem to recognize (as well as the two persons you mentioned
> above) by adhering to the ridiculous notion that the intellectual level is
> SOM. No wonder you are flawed and continue to be lost.
> "Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and
> since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a
> 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical
> absurdity" (LILA, ibid)
Marsha:
I did not mention the Intellectual level, so blah, blah away...
>
> As Pirsig clarifies on the AHP tapes regarding this statement: "That is a
> kind of a recursive thing where I have defined my own metaphysics as being
> absurd. And it's a kind of a Zen stunt, actually to say; I am telling you all
> this stuff and as soon as you understand it [which Marsha clearly doesn't]
> you better forget it because the real Quality is not a thing I can tell you
> about". ( AHP, tape two, side one)
>
> "The central reality of mysticism, (Marsha's no-thingness, no-selfness)the
> reality that Phaedrus had called 'Quality' in his first book, is not a
> metaphysical chess piece".
>
> Are you reading this Marsha?
Marsha:
I own a copy of the AHP tapes, and see nothing here with which to disagree.
Are you another one of those characters that like to climb up upon a soapbox
and make no-point?
___
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
