Ant said to all:
... I have now published Paul Turner's new paper about this issue at
robertpirsig.org. Paul says: 'I've updated my "Two Theses" post from 2005
and changed it to "Two Contexts" which seems more appropriate. Looking at the
MD lately I think a lot of time is wasted by people arguing from one context
against the other so I hope this helps reduce that in some way.' Paul's paper
can be found here:
http://www.robertpirsig.org/Two%20Contexts%20of%20the%20MOQ.htm
dmb says:
Paul's new paper is really beautiful. Perfect. I hope that it'll be widely read
and quoted.
Khoo wrote:
...Looks like this eureka moment is too much for some to handle. From the point
of view of Eastern Philosophy, there is no denial of intellect, but merely
placing it in its proper place. But from the point of view of Western
intellect, there seems to be a great fear of mysticism derived from self
introspection. This is its great limitation. RMP has endeavoured to provide a
place for it in the expansion of intellect by including Quality or Dynamic
Quality in the centre of the MOQ.
However, recent discussion has been anti-mysticism and by extension
anti-Quality, anti-DQ. One needs to rise above intellect to experience DQ. I
have been waiting years for signs of this realisation by the discussion group.
Alas. the moment there is a glimmer of this happening, the moderator wishes to
stamp it out. I post occassionally from the Eastern perspective in what is
practically a Western Forum. But there is no place for my views here, moderate
as they are, so I will leave. Thank you all for a decade and more of your
exchanges.
Horse replied to Khoo:
Khoo, before you go (and it's my sincere wish that you don't) could you explain
to me how one comes to a mystic understanding through intellect? Neither
myself, DMB, Ron, Arlo etc. etc. wish to denigrate DQ or subsume it within
Intellect. The problem here is that some do not appear to understand the nature
of a philosophical discussion group. I have, I believe, experienced DQ through
both music and Iaido and I certainly have no wish to dismiss DQ as irrelevant
or otherwise. It was also DMB who managed to get it through my thick skull that
DQ is central to Quality so I know damn well that he understands the DQ/Quality
relationship. However, using something called a 'DQ perspective' or claiming to
be a mystic in order to trash intellect is also immoral within an intellectual
environment.
So if you haven't already unsubscribed please explain to me where I am being
unreasonable. Are you so sure that like many others you aren't confusing the
MoQ (static quality) with DQ just as some in the past have confused the MoQ
with reality!!! Yes, DQ is central to Quality but the MoQ is not a synonym for
Quality - or do you believe otherwise?
dmb says:
Eureka moment is too much? There seems to be a great fear of mysticism? Recent
discussions have been anti-mystical?
I don't any basis for these claims (accusations). I think you're being wildly
unfair, Khoo. AS I see it, the so-called "eureka moment" is based on Marsha's
irrelevant reply to my post on the MOQ's theory of truth and the meaning of
degeneracy within an evolutionary morality. To reply with "kill all
intellectual patterns" is to change the subject. It's an absurd non-sequitor.
Neither you nor Marsha addressed the actual topic, much less any particular
point about truth or degeneracy. The problem with Marsha is that "kill all
intellectual patterns" is her answer to everything. Considering the context (a
philosophical discussion group) and the topic (the MOQ's theory of truth), that
is simply inappropriate and off the topic, not to mention rude and hostile.
Can't speak for others but mysticism is one of my favorite topics, one of my
favorite aspects of the MOQ, one of my favorite things about Dewey, James,
Campbell, Watts, Huxley, and most of my other intellectual heros. I certainly
think Marsha's faux-mysticism is new-age drivel but I also think philosophical
mysticism is as true as anything can be. Rejecting Marsha's escapist nonsense
is not at all the same as rejecting mysticism. Quite the opposite.
If you think the group could benefit from a discussion of mysticism, then start
a thread on it. But that will be a discussion. As a practical matter, all you
can do here is trade words, ideas, metaphors, etc - and that will never be a
mystical experience, of course.
"The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the
Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic
tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks about
does."
"[Dynamic] 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."
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
