To: Walter, Struan, Platt, David B, and gang
>From : Roger
Welcome back Dude!!!
I also want to respond to your issues. It should be stated that David B.
and I are not exactly the same on our philosophies. The differences are
usually subtle though. In general my interpretation is more....mystic? With
that said.....
WALTER:
The main point of dissatisfaction was
exactly the point Struan made, namely the fact that "experience", if it
is primary or not, implies an experiencer.
ROGER:
In a dualistic philosophy, yes. The mystic interpretation (as espoused by
James, Whitehead, Schroedinger, Wilber and the Zen philosophers) differs from
this in that reality is considered a flowing and dynamic stream of
experience. It is in essence undivided. In the mystic interpretation, you
are the universe. That art thou.
The experiencer,the experience, and the experienced can be divided out via
the drawing or creation of boundaries. The mystics call this Maya, we call it
sq. We are defined not as some objective, removed, impartial observer of
this divided reality, but as this entire process. We are seer, seeing and
seen. We are the divider. We are the undivided. We are DQ, we are sq. We
are the universe.
WALTER:
One explanation is that "experience" is not restricted to a mind and that's
also in my line of thinking. But, even if we open our minds and think
of electrons having experiences as well, the fact remains that this
presupposes the electron as a static pattern of values that does the
experiencing.
ROGER:
Funny thing is that physics has found that this electron has no boundary.
Quantum physics removed all boundaries and found that the electron is better
explained as a pattern of interrelationships with every other particle in the
universe. In isolation, the electron loses all meaning and ceases to exist.
There are two approaches to the issue -- you can consider reality as
essentially divided and collect it together, or you can consider it as
essentially undivided. The mystic interpretation is the latter. You
absolutely have to read "No Boundaries" by Wilber if you want a concise
explanation of this interpretation.
WALTER:
Why call it "experience", for it is bound to be the source of much
confusion?
Why not call it "primary events" or just "events", because I don't even see
why the "primary" most precede the words (or is it that "primary experience"
is
before subject/object and "secondary experience" after?)
ROGER:
Pirsig calls it DQ, or the stream of Quality events.
WALTER:
Anyway, even though I like the idea of the events 'being' Reality, this
still presupposes static patterns of value that are IN the event to
constitute it. Can there be an event without static patterns?
ROGER:
Reality/pure experience is not featureless. Patterns are collections of
experience, and the experiencer is one particular set of ever changing
patterns. It is extremely effective to view the world as a divided and
distinct static 'seer' and a 'seen'. Connecting the two is then "seeing".
However, the mystics warn us to not mistake the illusions of Maya for
undivided reality. Maya and sq refer to our maps of experiences, not to
undivided reality. The old question of objective vs subjective patterns is
illusory as well. The MOQ does not deny features or sq, in fact it
celebrates and glorifies the evolutionary dynamic of the process. It does
clearly define DQ as the base of reality and sq as derived from reality. We
are superficially viewed as the drawer of boundaries. But on a different
level, we are actually the boundary, the drawer of the boundary and the
undifferentiated continuum upon which we draw.
WALTER:
Does everyone think that the answer to the above
can only be found in leaving logic? Do we (like in Platt's quote) have
to embrace a different concept of 'understanding' from that or rational
explanation to progress beyond?
ROGER:
Actually it seems that people have gotten to mystic knowledge primarily via
logic. Logic has built in inadequacies in that it divides reality. The eye
cannot see itself seeing. However, the path to higher understanding lies
not in rejecting logic, but in seeing its inadequacies. I believe James,
Pirsig, Schroedinger, Bohr, Whitehead and others got here by seeing the
futility of full understanding via logic and division. This is certainly the
point of Koans as well.
Struan's accusations that we are illogical is as silly as saying Godel, Bohr,
James, Whitehead and Heisenberg were illogical. They transcended logic and
pointed beyond its horizons by climbing its peaks. Pirsig did the same.
There are lots of ways to evaluate reality. There are a lot of maps to
choose from. But we are discussing maps, not the territory. Each map has its
limitations, and there is a strong value in map critiquers (Struan).
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
