ROGER REPLIES TO AVID'S CONCERNS
THAT A CLOSED MOQ IS TOO LIMITING
(BUT IN THE PROCESS INADVERTENTLY
CONTRIBUTES TO THE HOLOCAUST)
Hi Avid,
My previous posts are separated from my current with these > things.
> ROGER:
>The levels are sortings of our conceptual models. They are not sorting
>Reality or DQ itself (which is preconceptual and unsortable). How can you
>critique Pirsig's conceptual cuts on that which has not been conceived
>yet?
AVID:
1) I don't think that WE are the only one who can MAKE these conceptual
model, yet we can participate in them [as organs of a complex creature].
2) In all western history of model making, all models started as closed
models containing closed groups. In time as each model evolved the groups
become open and more interlinked then before.
I don't see the advantage to keep it dogmatic and separated, why not "open
it up", even only in our dividing minds so we "let our eyes to adjust to the
haze on both ends".
ROGER:
Agreed. That is where DQ comes in, and that is why the MOQ is an evolutionary
metaphysics. But I agree with your general point.
>ROGER:
>I don't think Pirsig would deny that the MOQ could evolve to handle new
>concepts or new layers, just that they are not needed today.
AVID:
There is a strange connection between possibility and need. In my experience
you open up a possibility, you sometimes create the need. To suggest that
the need comes before the actual possibility is a bit naive. It would be
nice to perceive the world in a less centered way, I think that as humanity
we can take it not to be central [as we did with our astronomical point of
view] in our world perception as well, even as awareness.
ROGER:
Again, that is why the focus in the MOQ eventually goes beyond all patterns
to DQ itself.
>ROGER:[in another post]
>2) SQ is subjectified and objectified patterns. These are conceptual
>models that are our best representations of pre-conceptual experience.
AVID:
These SQ [or SPQ as I call them], are the best representation of
pre-conceptual experience, but they are not subjectified and objectified
patterns. Because the whole NEED of MoQ started with subjectified and
objectified patterns, being not good enough to describe and act in this
world. The need to reassemble the giant jigsaw puzzle once again started
from this inadequacy of the SOM.
ROGER:
The MOQ doesn't end with subjects and objects, though this is one way to
slice sq. It also ends with value and morality and explains the platypi of
s/o logic. It doesn't negate s/o, it transcends it. But if you don't like my
wording, here is Pirsig's ....do you agree with his?
On P 417 Pirsig writes: "Subjects and objects
are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more fundamental
which he (James) described as "the immediate flux of life which furnishes the
material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories." In this
basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, such as
those between consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and matter,
have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them."
>ROGER:
>These are often confused with reality because "they have become such a
>common apparatus for describing, understanding and analyzing that reality."
AVID:
The word reality [as the word God] is over used, to me reality is what I
face every instant of my life. It is an experience. Whether it is like I
perceive it or not I do not know, but in classifying what is I believe MoQ
is the best metaphysics we have yet. I think that holding a reality separate
from my experience of it will be misleading.
ROGER:
I have been making this point all month. To quote Pirsig again...."DQ is the
pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source of all things,
completely simple and always new."
AVID:
So I'll talk of only what I
perceive and think as possible [or impossible]. In this I have to see myself
as SPQ of a biological order, as SPQ of a social order, and find ways to
understand the connection between "these dots on my map". This will give me
a way to capture DQ for a limited time [after it I'll have to update my SPQ]
it can be my ideas [SPQ of cultural/intellectual level], it can be my genes
[SPQ of biological level], it could be laws of my society [SPQ of social
level]. All this is in my eyes reality, and if you tell me this is a mere
shadow of the real thing [Plato's cave all over again], I don't care because
it is all that is from my point of view. AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER THAT IT
IS ONLY MY POINT OF VIEW I'M OK. Then this I can call reality, and it may
contain objects and subjects but not be made of objects and subjects as
primary cut of an SPQ. Why bother to make a revolution if you end up with
the same stuff?
ROGER:
I do not fundamentally disagree with the above. I agree that sq is an
invaluable part of our reality too. I would add Pirsig's recommendation from
p418 though where he quotes James: " There must always be a
discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static and
discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing."
And this one from 428 where he discusses insanity (though I think we would
all agree he would apply this recommendation to a broader context): "This
solution is to dissolve all static patterns, both sane and insane, and find
the base of reality, Dynamic Quality, that is independent of all of them. "
I guess I am not sure what it is that you disagree with. In light of my
clarification above are you ok?
ROGER(From a separate post):
>Is the ocean composed of water or waves? Both answers are correct in
their own way. Waves are patterns that can form in myriads of mediums. My
answer
is that Reality is formed of direct experience. Sq is the patterns or waves
abstracted from this experience. But yes, the abstraction process is part
of reality too. Remember my song and my echo analogies? I guess it would be
clearer to say that "These are often confused with THE ESSENCE of
reality." >.
AVID:
Isn't it high time to depart from "essence of" things? Didn't the essential
attitude do enough harm? To search for purity led to Auschwitz.
ROGER:
Gee, sorry about the holocaust thing. I will avoid this word if it bothers
you. Maybe I should use nothing but Pirsig words . He called it "the base
of reality" as per the above P428 quote. Oh thats right, you aren't much for
the "R" word either. Hmmmm....Well, anyways, the message of the MOQ is that
everything is in essence (oops) composed of Value, or Quality...
AVID:
If all we
have is experience, why not to kiss essences their final goodbye.
ROGER:
Asta la vista Quality!
AVID:
I don't
know what is the essence of the ocean, I don't know what is the essence of
me. Any look for an essence in my eyes is last years snow. Can't we do
without them?
ROGER:
Great point, I will burn my copies of Lila right now.
AVID:
Your analogy of the ocean and the waves don't hold water. I
can imagine an ocean without waves, I cannot imagine a DQ without any SPQing
[conceptions, ideas, language].
ROGER:
I can't imagine it either. My analogy is just that there are multiple
dimensions to the answer of what is the base of reality. Reality is DQ
(water) and sq (waves). Every analogy has its limitations. Can't you find
anything you do agree with in the analogy?
AVID:
Your keeping reality separate from the
experienced, is little harm and no good, to use a metaphor that suggests
that reality [itself] as an ocean is expiriencable not through SPQ is a
misleading mistake
ROGER:
Have you read anything I have written this month? Your statement above is so
far from my beliefs as to be incomprehensible.
Rog
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]
