[MD] Static latching & faith

[Scott Roberts]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Heather Perella" <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Static latching & faith


Hey Scott,

     Scott said:  "So one can say that the mystics'
experience of an undifferentiated aesthetic continuum
is valid knowledge for them, and your blissing out on
birds is valid knowledge for you. But it is not
transferable to me in the way that
traditionally-described empirical knowledge is. So I
agree with Wilber that it is useful to keep to the
traditional meaning of empirical to avoid confusion.
As he says, and I agree, this does not make the MOQ
wrong. Just that it is a mistake to label it
empirical."

SA said:
     Ok, to label MOQ purely empirical is to veer away
from our perception, which I thought Pirsig said
quality was to Rigel.  Isn't perception of the sense,
yet, what perception we identify called static
quality.  Thus, my point, don't give up on the poetic
nature of the universe.  I hear birds.  You don't hear
these birds I hear right now at this very moment.  I
am empirically having that experience.  I say this to
you, and now I staticly put this empirical experience
of mine onto a computer to be sent to you.  When I say
I hear the birds singing, you will never have the same
empirical experience as I, and again I am putting a
static pattern on an experience that is more dynamic
than what I am trying to communicate to you is an
empirical experience about birds singing.  Thus, my
empirical experience is mystical and ordinary.  Why?
Because of the dynamic quality that is involved in my
empirical experience that I cannot staticly transmit
to you.

Scott interrupts:
Precisely. You cannot demonstrate to me that there is something, or some 
non-thing, called "dynamic quality". In particular, you can't demonstrate to 
me that this DQ is "undifferentiated". In fact, your description is full of 
differentiation (birds, not snakes; singing, not flying, etc.). The word 
'empirical' was coined to distinguish private knowledge from public 
knowledge, and of the latter, that which allows for static (repeatable) 
descriptions of sensory data. Such a word is useful. To extend it to any 
knowledge whatsoever is a bad rhetorical move. Poetic knowledge is great. 
Mystical knowledge is great. Just don't call it empirical.

SA continued:
  Thus, mystical to me is the dynamic quality
of the MOQ.  The static quality is not left out of the
mystical due to the DQ that is always side by side
with SQ.  These two are never separated from each
other therefore the MOQ deals with the overall quality
of any situation.  The overall quality of any
situation from what I understand will be mystical even
if it is empirical or reasonable because of quality
and why so?  Because of the question - what is
quality?  Answer that and we might demystify the MOQ.

     And so the universe is poetic and scientific
     The birds sing for hearts and tape recorders
     Have we changed the universe
     Or, have we changed ourselves
     Has the universe changed us
     Or, has the universe changed itself
     The dance of mind or matter goes on and on
     and yet, the quality of bird songs sing away.

Scott:
All true. But let's call heart knowledge something else, and keep the word 
'empirical' for tape recorder knowledge. It's a useful distinction.

- Scott