First from the beginning of the book:  

RMP:
"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. 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. It would be almost like a mathematical definition of randomness. The 
more you try to say what randomness is the less random it becomes. Or 'zero,' 
or 'space' for that matter. Today these terms have almost nothing to do with 
'nothing.' 'Zero' and 'space' are complex relationships of 'somethingness.' If 
he said anything about the scientific nature of mystic understanding, science 
might benefit but the actual mystic understanding would, if anything , be 
injured. If he really wanted to do Quality a favor he should just leave 
 it alone. 

"What made all this so formidable to Phaedrus was that he himself had insisted 
in his book that Quality cannot be defined. Yet here he was about to define it. 
Was this some kind of a sell-out? His mind went over this many times. 

"A part of it said, 'Don't do it. You'll get into nothing but trouble. You're 
just going to start up a thousand dumb arguments about something that was 
perfectly clear until you came along. You're going to make ten-thousand 
opponents and zero friends because the moment you open your mouth to say one 
thing about the nature of reality you automatically have a whole set of enemies 
who've already said reality is something else.'The trouble was, this was only 
one part of himself talking. There was another part that kept saying, 'Ahh, do 
it anyway. It's interesting.'"

(RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 5)



And then from the end of LILA, RMP writes:

RMP:
"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? 

"It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. No matter how 
smart you are you're never going to play a game that is 'right' for all people 
at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten questions led to a hundred more and 
answers to those led to a thousand more. Not only would he never get it right; 
the longer he worked on it the wronger it would probably get."

(RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 32)




Marsha 

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

Reply via email to