This post seems like philosophical/psychological chum thrown overboard to see what it will attract. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but often I cannot find a precise point of disagreement. Is there a specific point you'd like to discuss?
> Hi Marsha, > I appreciate the labels that you are giving to DQ. I think I understand > where you are coming from. You present a kind of metaphysical theology. > There is also another kind of metaphysics, that is one which traces back > to ultimate principles. I am' dealing with the latter approach. It is > simply two different approaches. I am sure that your approach brings you > much fulfillment. > > This forum is about the metaphysics of Quality. That is, it is meant to > provide a description of Quality in metaphysical terms. Certainly > unknowable can be one such description, but I am curious where you take it > from there. Is the first principle that it cannot be described? If so, we > are speaking of a metaphysics of the indescribable, which is more of a > Christian approach to reality. I have no problem with this. > > Any metaphysics of Quality comes from one's personal relationship, through > Quality, with existence. I fully appreciate that your relationship with > existence is one of unknowability. This indeed can be one of wonder, and > be very fulfilling, and I appreciate you candor in providing this to me. > That IT is there but that we will never know it. Thanks for that. I have > some more thoughts concerning my approach, which may fall on deaf ears. > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:13 AM, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote: > >> >> >> Mark, >> >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 6:55 PM, 118 <ununoctiums@gmai...> wrote: >> >> >>> Mark: >>> "And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good- need we ask anyone to >>> tell us these things?" ZAMM- quote which leads the book. >>> Until one grasps this quote, one does not grasp what is being told in >> ZAMM. >>> DQ is not unknowable, for we all know it. We could say that DQ is >>> indivisible, but then so is Love. What can the indivisible part tell us? >>> We can define anything we want, for that is what we do as humans. Any >>> definition of anything is insufficient, for that is a property of SQ. To >>> say that DQ is undefinable, suggests that we cannot relate it. But we >>> relate DQ all the time. >> >> Marsha: >> I do not think Dynamic Quality can be known conceptually (patterned) or >> perceptually (patterned). Dynamic Quality is unknowable, indivisible and >> undefinable. >> > > Mark > Yes, we can label DQ as you do above. This is similar to the gnostic > approach to God. Indeed, many spiritual teachings work through this > method. The Hindu Brahman can also be described as you do DQ. However, > there has been much written about such an entity which allows the > illumination of what these labels mean. Volumes and volumes of stuff, that > I am sure you are aware of. Such volumes often deal with metaphors and > myths, which allow one to get away from a dead end of unknowable, through > personally relatable stories. Perhaps a story of your interaction with DQ > would further illuminate what you mean. > > When I bring in the quote from the beginning of ZAMM, this is also very > similar to what you are saying. I provided this to give you a start. > >> >> >>>> Marsha: >>>> Experience is recognizing patterns based on the predisposition of our >>>> perceptual and mental apparatus. How is it that human beings might have >>>> access to what is beyond that apparatus? Mental white noise! >>> >>> >>> Mark: >>> The intellectual experience is only a small part of human existence. The >>> brain is an organ like the heart. We always have access beyond the >> brain, >>> or the heart, or the gut for that matter. To conceive that we are stuck >> in >>> experience (of whatever kind) leaves out a lot of human existence. >>> Experience is created by our bodies, but just think what lies before and >>> after that experience. There is a whole world there. >> >> Marsha: >> I did not confine the statement to "intellectual experience", nor "the >> brain". I wrote: Experience is recognizing (valuing) patterns based on >> the predisposition of our perceptual and mental apparatus. >> > > Mark > You seem to draw a distinct line at "patterns". This is your first > principle. We can make the assumption that patterns exist, and use that as > our starting point. At times it is sometimes useful to look at what these > patterns come from. One could say that we create these patterns as > experience. However, you bring in an interesting twist, that being > "recognizing' patterns. This would assume that such patterns exist outside > of our experience. This could indeed be DQ that you are speaking of. Is > this what you mean? > >> >> >>>> Marsha: >>>> Static patterns (perceptual and conceptual) are what we know. >>> >>> >>> Mark: >>> No, we know much more than that. We know what is before such static >>> patterns, and what happens when they appear. Life is not existing in >>> shadows of two dimensional presentation. Try to understand Plato's sun. >> >> Marsha: >> Static patterns (perceptual and conceptual) are what we know. Though >> Dynamic Quality may be experienced, Dynamic Quality is unknowable, >> indivisible and undefinable. >> > > Mark > OK. As I understand what you say: Static patterns are what we know. > Knowing is static patterns. I believe we can go beyond such knowing, for > this approaches DQ. I do not see the stark line that you are drawing. For > this would imply that we are stuck in SQ. If this were true, how could we > follow DQ? > >> >> >>>> Marsha: >>>> Here is where the idea of evolution _seems_ to add value to our >>>> understanding, or maybe not. We don't know what we don't know! >>> >>> >>> Mark: >>> Here's the deal: >>> 1. We know that we know >>> 2. We know that we don't know >>> 3. We don't know what we don't know >>> 4. We don't know what we know (we must never forget this last >>> configuration). >>> >>> There are so many things that we do not know that we know. One does not >>> simply stop at a definition of static patterns, one travels beyond that >> to >>> know more that we know. Words can get one stuck at what seems to be and >> end >>> of knowing. But such a thing is just an illusion created by believing >> the >>> words. Words are not meant to provide limits to knowledge, they are >> meant >>> to continue to extend knowledge, forever. >> >> Marsha: >> If this is your "deal", I am not buying it as a relevant response to my >> statement. >> > > Mark > Well, mainly it was to point out that we do not know what we know. One > such knowing is DQ, which you can claim does not fall within your patterned > knowing. That was the relevance which I was putting in. It was simply > a corollary to your "we don't know what we don't know", which was a quote > from our illustrious secretary of defense under Bush 2, that gave the > reasoning for invading Iraq. > >> >> >>>> Marsha: >>>> And as RMP has advised "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled >> by >>>> static patterns of value it is without choice. But to the extent that >> one >>>> follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." >>> >>> Mark: >>> Yes, exactly! >> >> Marsha: >> A quote has its advantages. >> >> >>> One is controlled by static patterns if one follows them. >>> One such following would be to say that DQ is unknowable, indivisible and >>> undefinable. One does not need to follow those rules, one can follow DQ. >>> It is important to not box oneself in with static patterns. That is what >>> Pirsig is saying. The more rigorous MoQ becomes, the less it becomes >> about >>> Quality. It becomes the Metaphysics of MoQ (MoMoQ). Then one can take >> it >>> a step farther and it becomes the MoMoMoQ. This goes on forever like a >>> snake eating its own tail. This is what happens when one follows static >>> patterns. One is not free. >> >> Marsha: >> One might say that saying anything at all is static, and here you are >> having so much to say too. >> > > Mark > The point was to try to prevent one from being stuck in the static, since > this is simply an illusion. By claiming that this is all we can know we > create a box in which we find ourselves. The point of enlightenment is to > open that box. > >> >> >>>> Marsha: >>>> Can you attentively detach, for even a few minutes, from the flow of >>>> patterns? Maybe slightly dizzy from that merry-go-round is the better >>>> place to be? Maybe being slightly dizzy enabled Einstein to visualize >>>> something that freed him from the past? >>>> >>> >>> Mark: >>> If one detaches from this flow of patterns, one is no longer the flow of >>> patterns. The flow of patterns are something that is happening to one; >>> just like one is not part of the roller coaster that one is experiencing, >>> but can say "I am on a roller coaster, I am on it". As you correctly >> say, >>> there is something which can detach. This is known as the Self. The >> Self >>> is not some logical construct that can be encountered through thinking >>> about it. The self is what experiences the thinking. It is the page on >>> which the words of your life are written. One can search forever in the >>> words and never see the page. It is not part of the words. >> >> Marsha: >> You misrepresented my statement, which was a question (about detaching). - >> The "self", as an inherently existing, autonomous individual, is an >> illusion. Upon investigation I consistently find only a flow of bits and >> pieces of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value patterns. >> > > Mark > Remember, your statement was "Can YOU attentively detach from the flow of > patterns", not "YOU are these patterns". I do not think I misrepresented > your statement. You speak of a detachment, not of a clinging. To claim > that we are patterns is a form of clinging. > > The illusion is your creation by claiming that it must be existing in a > dialectic materialist sense. If one does not use that approach, then one > can grasp what is meant. One cannot deconstruct a page on which words are > written, only the words can be deconstructed. Again, we have your first > principle that begins with "Patterns Exist". This is a materialist > approach which claims a truth in such a statement. I am suggesting that > this patterns approach only leads to more patterns. > > Remember the quote which starts ZAMM. > >> >> >>> Mark: >>> It is much more than an opinion, it is a way of life. It is the Quality >>> Way. It is what Pirsig writes about in ZAMM. >> >> RMP's opinion: >> "The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says >> this “autonomous individual” is an illusion." >> (RMP, Copleston) >> >> >> Mark > >> Yes, but I am not speaking of an autonomous individual, for that is simply >> using the Patterns first principle that you begin with. One could say that >> these patterns are an illusion, and not a good starting point. >> > > Cheers, > Mark > >> >> >> >> 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 >> > 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 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