Hi David, Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote. I can only interpret what I read through that which I am. I will try to clarify some below.
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 3:22 AM, David Harding <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Mark, > > > David makes some interesting claims. Hopefully he can provide some > > examples where my writings are devoid of his "intellectual > > perspective". > > > > A good question would be: What is the intellect? Certainly the use of > > words for description of one's awareness is an intellectual effort. > > If I understand David's remarks, he would compartmentalize the use of > > the intellect in certain ways. I would be curious what boundaries he > > would place around the intellectual perspective. It even seems like > > he considers the intellect to be more than a tool. > > I do not consider the intellect to be more than a tool. This looks like a > case of the old adage that we feat that in others that which we fear most > in ourselves… Look out for Mark using the intellect as more than a tool > everyone! > Mark: My request was for examples. With your statement above, I am left without the ability to comprehend your position. I cannot necessarily be held at fault for this. > > > > Certainly the intellect is more than taking what one is given and > > simply expanding on it. The intellect is used for asking the right > > questions, looking for data (which is neutral) and forming the best > > model by which to analyze such data (which could be experience). It > > is also used for creativity in presenting things which are completely > > new. I am not sure what David's background is in, but I fail to see > > much critical thinking in his writings. It seems his efforts are more > > devoted to trying to control the conversation. > > Once again, we fear that in others that which we fear most in ourselves… > Look out for Mark trying to control the conversation everyone! > Mark: What I wrote stands unless you can explain why it is misguided. I apologize for the personal nature of my retort. > > >> Words - they can describe a great many things. We humans use them from > the perspective of different values as well.. > >> > >> We can use them from the perspective of biological patterns: "Oh yes > that's goood!" - social patterns: "Gesundheit" - intellectual patterns: > "E = MC^2" and Dynamic Quality "Not this, not that." > > > > Mark: > > That David would claim a distinction between values and other > > perspectives indicates that he does not understand MOQ. It would seem > > that he claims that the use of words falls into different levels. > > This would indicate that he does not understand what the levels > > symbolize. What he terms biological patterns are intellectual > > constructs. The biological level does not have words. Words are used > > by the social level to enable group consciousness. These social level > > derived words integrate into our personal consciousness and are used > > to exchange ideas. The intellectual level uses social level-derived > > words, but they do not come from the intellectual level. > > This is like saying ants have a 'society' because they work together. It > does nothing to improve our understanding of a society.. Likewise, to say > that all language is 'social' because we use it communicate with other > people, this tells us nothing about language. As I explained, languages > can be used from the perspective of the biological, social and intellectual > levels. It can also be used from the 'mystic level' to point to DQ. As you > admitted, the intellectual level uses the socially derived languages, so > this actually undercuts your whole argument. > Mark: Perhaps what I write it does not impart much meaning to your understanding of society. A society is an expression of the social level, like a tree is an expression of the biological level. Language is a tool used by the social level which provides us with a personal sense of awareness in relation to others. It is provided to us as a means to incorporate the social level into our sense of existence. As I stated, the biological level does not have language. The biological level has a different form of communication, as does the inorganic. (Perhaps you are using "language" to impart communication in general.) One cannot claim that language is part of these levels, it just does not make sense. The "mystic level" is also language free, it is a personal awareness which can then try to use language. This explains why it is so hard to use language to impart the mystical. My argument is based on a separation of the levels in terms of their "awareness". The communication of the biological level is different from the communication of the social level. The intellectual level uses language from the social level in the same way that the social level uses communication from the biological level (nerve impulses for example). Your argument claims that we are speaking from a "higher" level. This would be akin to saying that each instrument of an orchestra speaks from the symphony level. It is the other way around. Each instrument is a component of the symphony level, and the symphony speaks for itself. > > >> David: > >> Bad things happen however, when we claim to speak from one perspective, > but are actually speaking from another. The most common misunderstanding > on this philosophy forum is when mystics such as Mark and Marsha claim to > be speaking from the perspective of the intellect but are actually speaking > from the perspective of Dynamic Quality. This results in ugly mysticism > which doesn't end up pointing to DQ at all and creates incoherence on the > intellectual level. > > > > Mark: > > This idea of perspective that David brings in is interesting, and I am > > not exactly sure what he means, but I will do my best to interpret. > > Perhaps he means that from whence we speak, or the awareness from > > which we speak. In this case, it can be said that we all speak from > > the mystical. Dynamic Quality cannot be considered a perspective (if > > I understand David's meaning). We do not have dynamic or static > > "perspectives", since that would not make sense in terms of MOQ. > > Speak for yourself Mark. This shows your misunderstand and exactly why I > wrote this post. You think that everything is a description of the > mystical level… or DQ. Not everything is a description of DQ. There is a > whole metaphysics worth of static quality levels which language can be used > from the perspective of… > Mark: Well yes, I did admit that I did not understand what you mean. What you reply with with does not help me either. Language is description. It is a means by which we can impart that which is occurring before language, to each of us. I believe it is important to understand that the static level cannot exist on its own. Such superficial ideas of existence is where we find ourselves in the 21st century, and is what MOQ is trying to rectify. Metaphysics draws us into a realm from which we can deliver metaphysical presentations. Metaphysics cannot stand on its own in the static quality level, it is a description of more than itself. It is a description of that which brings metaphysics forth. It is pointing not encapsulating. > > > David: > >> To be clear - a philosophical forum, by definition, is interested in > one of these levels only - the intellectual level. The intellect doesn't > like undefined things. Talking intellectually is itself actually a form of > degeneracy. > > > > Mark: This philosphical forum is interested in discussing all of the > > levels. It is guided by the intellectual level. > > Well here we agree. > Mark: Cool. > > > David: > > This is admitted by Pirsig where he writes: > >> > >> "Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate > activity." > >> > >> If that was the end of the story, then writing an intellectual > Metaphysics would be something one ought not do. But, according to Pirsig, > that isn't the end of the story.. > >> > >> "The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world > with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and > to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for > being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and > writing metaphysics is a part of life." > >> > >> So Pirsig proceeds to outline the intellectual philosophy of the MOQ - > thus embracing the degeneracy of the intellect and destroying the > fundamental undefined source of all things with fixed metaphysical meanings. > > > > Mark: > > David clearly has a misconception of what Pirsig is trying to teach. > > What he is saying is that the words of metaphysics should not be > > confused with what they are referring to. > > David: > You are projecting Mark. I am saying the opposite to this. Once again, > this is why I wrote this post. Because you think that all words must be a > description of DQ. Ultimately, you're right. But this is a philosophical > discussion board. We aren't here to talk 'ultimately'. We are here to > speak from the perspective of the intellect. And from the perspective of > the intellect, words refer to the *static quality* they represent. > Mark: When I mentioned "he" above, I meant Pirsig. A metaphysics is a discussion of the nature of being. Such discussion does contain the "ultimate", unless you are envisioning beyond such "nature of being". The perspective of the intellect has its roots outside of the intellect. It is governed by the four levels, and the intellect is not the intellectual level, any more than an instrument is the symphony. In my opinion, words are descriptive of something. In themselves they present a static appearance but do not refer to themselves. Such a referral would be empty and two dimensional, like a shadow on a cave floor. Static Quality is such a shadow, but we must get beyond the idea of shadows describing themselves. We must look to the source of the shadows. Obviously MOQ is not new is suggesting this. > > > The only way in which > > metaphysics becomes degenerate is if the words used are taken > > literally and as a complete description. There are many involved in > > this forum that have this problem with the literal. The “pollution” > > of mistaking words for things in themselves is what Pirsig is > > cautioning against. That David thinks the discussion of metaphysics > > is destructive suggests that he has not understood what Pirsig is > > presenting. > > And this shows your misunderstanding Mark. Pirsig is not trying to > *Avoid* polluting the mystical reality of the world. He claims literally, > that this is impossible and an attempt to avoid doing so, as you do, is a > form of pollution itself. This is why he wrote Lila. Exactly because he > knows that words pollute the mystical reality of the world and that there > is value in doing so. > Mark: This is only impossible if one believes that a description is the thing itself. When I describe a boat, that description is not the boat. When describe an awareness based on Quality, that is not Quality. Pirsig is fearful of definitions because others may think that what he is providing is an encapsulation of Quality. He wrote Lila in order to explain his manner of looking at things. It was a personal inquiry. I agree with the value, but not with the pollution. It only pollutes the uninitiated, like a bible pollutes those who expect to be given the answer. If one thinks that the words in Lila (and other writings of his) is Quality, then such person does not understand the message. The continual "proofs" presented for one's argument which resort to quoting Pirsig is no different from a Christians quoting the Bible to demonstrate that God exists. Pirsig could have used any number of words and concepts to present how he saw things. > > > The Metaphysics of Quality is an introduction to a method for becoming > > aware of the world as value. This metaphysics is presented as a > > doorway into the world of Quality. That David claims that the > > intellectual is destructive suggests that he has no idea what Quality > > is, and how one can get there. That he would subscribe to an > > “undefined source” is purely religious and has no place in a > > metaphysical discussion. He would appear to hold such "undefined > > source" as some elevated form of being. Why doesn't he just say God, > > instead of "undefined source"? For that is what God is. > > That is what undefined Good is. I'm not religious in the sense of there > being some type of anthropomorphic deity however the undefined source is > indeed the source of all things. The MOQ, the same as religion, emphasises > the importance of becoming a better person.. You don't want to become a > better person? > David, you are describing this "source" as undefined. This is not uncommon. Definitions come as a result of taking in what we are part of and then formulate words to describe it. It obviously stands to reason that a definition cannot come before we create such a thing. To describe where definitions come from as "a source of all things" is simply a logical statement implying that we create definitions. It does not point to anything as a source. It would appear that you are bringing in the biological level with forceful social overtones in terms of "becoming a better person". What is good and what is bad? What I try to do is express myself from a personal position of Arete. While this does contain social overtones. My Arete comes from the biological level and derives its drive from the inorganic level. At the same time, I do hope that I present myself as a person in search of self-improvement. >> Now, if Marsha and Mark would like to avoid ruining the undefined source > of all things with fixed metaphysical meanings then I suggest that they > stop talking, cease existing, and erase any thought of their existence from > the heads of everyone they have ever encountered. If they cannot do this, > then please either join a Zen group and discuss mysticism there or embrace > your inner intellectual degenerate and accept that your words are > definitions which attempt to describe reality with fixed metaphysical > meanings. Or ideally, do both. > > > > David is fearful that I might "ruin" the undefined source of all > > things. He must believe that I have some divine power. Each and > > every word we use has a meaning. If we say that something is > > "undefined" that also has a meaning. The purpose of MOQ is to use the > > premise of Quality to describe an awareness in metaphysical terms. > > Perhaps David should reword his endeavor to the "Metaphysics of the > > Undefined". Then he can build a church to house his writings. > > Discussing something such as Quality does not destroy it. Quite to > > the contrary, it promotes it. > > David: > Once again, your misunderstanding of my argument here points to your > misunderstanding of the MOQ. You conflate intellectual quality with > Dynamic Quality. Discussing Quality does destroy the mystical Dynamic > Quality. This is confirmed in Lila where Pirsig writes: > > "Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act > since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher > mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries > to control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to > devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within > a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try?" > > The reason why we try is because it is intellectually valuable to do so > and as this above statement shows, this is very much *not* good for the > undefined mystic reality of the world. > Pirsig writes about control of one opinion by another. This is not where I am coming from. In my opinion, discussing Quality creates a forum in which others can be drawn into being more aware of Dynamic Quality. Any discussion is an exchange of ideas. Ideas can lead to further awareness. This awareness is not the idea itself, but what the idea does to one's own ability to further describe existence. Once we understand that the "capture" which Pirisg is referring to as a ghost, then there is no fear of capture. Metaphysics does not devour the world intellectually, it simply expresses it. If I write about a horseback riding trip, I am not devouring that experience. As I have stated before, the intellectual can promote the mystical, if one is willing. > > > Pirsig has written two books about > > Quality. If David had his way he would burn all copies of these. > > Perhaps he should complain directly to Pirsig and tell him to stop > > talking, cease existing, and erase any thought of existence from his > > head. I am sure that Pirsig would laugh in his face. If David does > > not want to discuss Quality using well defined words, then he is in > > the wrong forum. That he is worried about destroying Quality is quite > > a shock to me. I thought he understood MOQ. > > Not at all Mark. Your failure to distinguish between intellectual quality > and Dynamic Quality results in this confusion. I am saying it is > intellectually very valuable to write a metaphysics. This is why RMP > writes the book. However, what it does no favours for is the ultimately > mystic nature of the universe. In fact, a metaphysics destroys the > ultimately mystic nature of the universe. > I suppose you are projecting an ultimately mystic nature of the universe which somehow lies outside our participation in it. In fact, it seems to me you are suggesting that our participation in such a universe is detrimental to such mystical nature. I would look at it a different way. Our expression stems from that which forms such expression. Since it lies in the arena of dynamic quality, we can describe it as mystical (which is personal revelation). Our intellectual capability is a result of such mystical and can not destroy it any more than an appreciation of music would destroy the music. Just some opinions which I am in no way married to. Cheers, David, Mark > > 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
