[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden at davtv.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Platt's Individual Level
>Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:17:54 -0400
>
>Hi Dan:
>
>First, the background and context:
>
>Quoting Dan Glover:
> > > > This changing reality we mold is arising in dependence on causes and
> > > > conditions. There is no object apart from that.
>
>Platt asks:
> > >As you know, many posit God as the "first cause." What is your
> > >understanding of the origin of "causes and conditions?" Thanks.
>
>Dan replies:
>
> >In a  word: Ignorance. The mistaken view where
> > the objects of perception have an inherent existence separate and apart
> > from the perceiver fosters the notion that there must be a "first cause"
> > that started the whole sheebang. When people hold things to truly exist
> > that is how the world appears to them. These people are like an audience
> > watching a magic show. The illusions cannot arise without ignorance. The
> > magician (on the other hand) sees only an appearance, for the magician
> > knows the illusions are creations and nothing more.
>
>If I understand you correctly you side with the Idealists who believe
>the existence of a separate world from our perceptions is an illusion.

Hi Platt

I'll side with the MOQ and say that idealism is a high quality idea.

>I agree with you that the divisions required by intellectualization are
>indeed illusory, except that in my understanding of Quality there
>appears to exist not only a creative force (DQ) but a survival force
>(static Quality). In Pirsig's words: "Without Dynamic Quality the
>organism cannot grow. Without static quality the organism cannot last.
>Both are needed." (Lila, 11)
>
>Since from an MOQ perspective "need" is a "value" I'd suggest the
>illusions we need to survive -- to fulfill the "lasting" aspect of
>Quality -- are quite unlike the entertaining illusions of a magician,
>the former being far more valuable than the latter.

Perhaps I offered a weak analogy yet I thought it helped shed light on what 
I am saying. Of course there is a range of values from low to high.

>
>Giving the value of survival,  ignorance of the illusion of "dependence
>on causes and conditions" is bliss. And since such ignorance seems to
>have little adverse effect in a world where survival (static Quality)
>is such an important part of the game, perhaps ignoring our ignorance,
>just as we tend to ignore the mystics view that thought obscures
>reality, is the better way.

If we really had to worry about survival, would we be talking here? I think 
not. So while I will grant you that survival is of value, it seems quite 
ludicrous to keep one's head in the sands of ignorance when conditions allow 
for something better.

>
>Having said that, your answer to my question about "first cause"
>remains valid because no matter what answer is given, it has no bearing
>on our valuing an orderly world and a long life.
>
>Or have I missed your point entirely?

Today I read a science article about how on account of a bulge in it, 
researchers are postulating that the moon once orbited the earth not in a 
circular orbit as now but rather in an elongated elliptical fashion, coming 
much closer to earth at times and receding much further away. I was 
particularly struck by this statement:

"That would make the Moon especially dramatic viewed from the lifeless Earth 
of 4.3 billion years ago."

Would anyone believe that an intelligent person wrote this piece of 
nonsense? If the earth was lifeless, how could anyone or anything be viewing 
the moon? Yet people go on believing what they want to believe. Ignorance 
has a direct bearing on our orderly world, I should think. But as always I 
could be wrong.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan