Hi Glove, David B. and Group:
Thanks Glove for your comments about Doug�s axioms.
I still have some trouble with �flux� being DQ because, according to
the axiom, flux is measurable in Hertz while DQ is unmeasurable
Also, I'm puzzled by "preconditions of awareness� because I think it
runs into the same buzz saw of infinite regress that ultimately
destroys "cause." What precondition was valued to create the
precondition that was valued to create awareness?
Which raises again the issue of subject-object rationally-based
scientific language being hopelessly inadequate to deal with the
ultimate meaning of the MOQ, just as rationality becomes incoherent
in the face of quantum mechanics.
It's frustrating. Here we find ourselves immersed in a metaphysics
which we believe to be important and yet find it hard to explain to
anyone else. Even among ourselves there�s wide disagreement on
some points.
The mystic aspect--that's what so hard to grasp in words and why I
think Doug�s axioms, based on SOM, are questionable. Without
recognition and understanding of the mystic part, the MOQ goes
nowhere.
I've racked my brain ever since joining the Squad to come up with a
way to understand DQ, and make others understand, without relying
on strange, ancient, oriental texts or modern, long-haired, bearded
gurus. I also want to avoid using loaded terms like religion,
spirituality, or mysticism. (As soon as you mention religion or
mysticism, the room quickly empties. Many associate spirituality
with New Age nonsense.)
The closest I've come is pointing to the esthetic experience, our
universal sense of beauty. Say what we will about the Victorians,
many of them had a love of craftsmanship--a sensitivity for beauty in
the products they made. Pirsig mentions how the Orientals have a
reverence for their work based on cultural tradition. The Western
world also possesses a long cultural tradition of work related esthetic
consciousness, beginning with the ancient Greeks and continuing
right up to 19th century Europe until the factory system and mass
production began to take its toll. (David B. may provide some
historical perspective on this.) To restore a sense of pride in the
beauty of the thing produced--whether a doctoral thesis, a scientific
experiment or a hamburger at the local fast food joint--would go a
long way to heighten awareness of DQ. But it may be too late.
I have to hand it to environmental activists who are as much
motivated by saving the beauty of nature as for saving mankind. As
long as we have the former there's always hope for the latter. Those
involved in architectural preservation also have my admiration as do
museum curators and others dedicated to saving the best works of
man. There's hope as some of their arguments for government
participation gain wider approval.
Still, I get discouraged. But when I begin to doubt that the MOQ will
someday gain a wider impact, I remind myself of a phrase penned
by Stephen King, the famous writer of horror fiction:
�There is fine Waterford crystal which rings delicately when struck,
no matter how thick and chunky it may look, and then there are
Flintstone jelly glasses. You can drink your Dom Perignon out of
either one, but friends, there's a difference.�
It's that difference which science, religion and philosophy have
failed to explain. Until Pirsig. It's that difference, universally
recognized, which may help open more minds to the MOQ.
I apologize for wandering off the subject, Any thoughts?
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
