[MD] dualism redux

[Kevin Perez]

Hello Ian,
 
> > > Journey's end (enlightenment) is arriving at a place where you can see
> > > the journey has no end.
 
<snip>
 
> > Interesting.  The dualist in me sees two journeys.  But the mystic in me
> > sees paradox and truth.
>
> Stick with your mystic then. No truth the other way (in your own words).
 
I think it would be better to stick with both and realize my True self and my False
self (a la Merton and Rohr).  This, after all, is reality.
 
> > > (Reality / life is a never ending and evolving
> > > process of interactions, where subjects objects, means, ends, causes,
> > > etc are our pragmatic lingustic conveniences, etc.)
> >
> > Experience, belief or some of both?
>
> What other kind of belief is there ?  Based on experiences (and
> intellectual and aesthetic interpretation of those, naturally)
 
I couldn't tell whether what you were sharing was conceptual or experiential.
 
When I interview candidates for employment I ask about actual experiences, e.g.,
"Tell me about a time when your decision-making contributions to a team effort
made a difference.  Be specific."  As opposed to, "What would you do if [...]" or
"What do you think about [...]"
 
> > In this description where do you see your future...long, long term?
>
> Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. And re-enter the loop somewhere
> else, some other time maybe. (Like anyone hoping to make a dent in the
> world, I live in hope that the odd meme may live on too.)
 
Yes.  Life _and_ death.  This is _the_ great mystery, perhaps the greatest
mystery.  It's often approached with questions like "is there life after death?"  As if
life and death can be separated from each other.  More dualism, imo.
 
I've found deep meaning in seeing this mystery as life from death or life through
death, e.g., new beginnings, catharsis, forgiveness, etc.  It give me hope for the
future.
 
> > The MOQ is "final" in the sense that it includes the definition of
> > it's own future. It is an intellectual pattern that defines how future
> > patterns may evolve.
>
> > Do you see the MOQ as finite or infinite?  I see its limits.
>
> Both. It encapsulates / seeds the whole, but is itself only a
> part. It includes the basis of evolving anything better than itself.
> What more can one ask for, apart from the idea of some absolute.
 
I sense something of an interaction in what you say.  But I don't see the
interraction involving the MOQ directly.  I see you interracting with your thoughts
and feelings about the MOQ.
 
> > > The part which includes the whole.
> > > (A beautiful, cosmological-scale Quine.)
> >
> > Life, yes.  Reality, yes.  Concepts, no.  MOQ, no.
> 
> If you see this in life and reality, then forget the MoQ and its
> concepts; They're just linguistic descriptions, intellectual patterns
> used to communicate with people who do not yet see it that way.
> 
> So Kevin, you don't buy the MoQ as a useful matphysics or world-view ?
 
I'm fascinated by Pirsig's approach to quality.  But the MoQ?  Too static for my
taste.
 
Mystically and thoughtfully,
 

Kevin 
 
 

 
---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.