Greetings Ham,
I am unsure how to understand the portion of the post addressed to me. For me, the MoQ is Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience). Static quality represents the conventional; patterns are "conventionally" real. No nihilism. Marsha On Jul 30, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > > Greetings Joe, Hi Marsha and All -- > > > As you must be aware by now, I have problems with much of the MOQ > terminology. The author's metaphors and euphemisms don't help me understand > Pirsig's reality any more than my own. Essentially, they shroud everything > known > about the world in a "cloud of unreality". Unreality is meaningless to me as > a > philosophy of life. > > Here are two recent examples . . . > > Joe writes: >> Hi Ham and All, >> >> Evolution can be described as levels in existence. How many levels? >> For myself I accept seven levels in existence. Reality has a number >> of faces. > > Yes, I suppose evolution can be described as a series of levels. But WHY? > This is like the poet's numerical analysis of his love for a lady: "Let me > count the ways". Does parsing Love numerically make a romantic attraction > more insightful or comprehensible? > >> Accepting a "duality in existence" is either fish or fowl and you >> don't gain much clarity in only an acceptance of "yes" and "no". >> "Oh My Stars!" is so much more real! >> >> A sensible awareness of the primacy of existence aids in the >> evaluation of a description of evolution. > > Joe, existence is a differentiated system -- that is, a plurality of related > things and events. Inasmuch as "two" is the beginning of numeration, I > submit that establishing a duality (i.e., the Self/Other dichotomy) as the > primary difference, and working from there is far more useful "an evaluation > of evolution" than arbitrarily numbered levels, static patterns, conventions, > causes and effects. This not only avoids having to explain complex and > largely unknown relationships between phenomena, it affords a > conceptual foundation for a metaphysical ontology. > > Marsha wrote: >> I accept that duality is the convention. >> >> It is static value that brings into existence the Self. I am not >> rejecting this convention; it is what it is. >> >> If you were satisfied with conventional reality, why did you >> put together your Essence philosophy and write your book? >> Are the questions over for you? Do you have all the answers? > > A "convention" is an agreed practice in referencing objective phenomena, a > symbolic 'reification' of universal experience, as opposed to descriptive > statements or definitions. But what does it gain us intellectually to > simply call existence a "convention"? And if existence is a convention, > then you are a convention within it, and maybe Reality itself is only a > convention. Isn't that stretching nihilism to absurdity? > > Marsha, I may not have all the answers, but I know that existence is not the > primary reality and there is more to it than reified idioms. I authored the > Philosophy of Essence to put reality into a cosmological perspective. > But if existence is only convention, as you suggrest, there's no point in > philosophizing about it until we all wake up from this dreamlike stupor > and have something Real to talk about. > > Nihilism is for nincompoops. Let's get REAL, folks! > > Essentially speaking, > Ham > > 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
