[MD] Is it serious?

[MarshaV]

Hello Ham,


At 03:54 AM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>Greetings, Marsha -
>
>I hope you enjoyed your weekend at the beach.  (I don't know where 
>you vacation, but I hear that the weather was great at the Jersey shore.)
>
>Krimel "stepped in" for you in the meantime, informing me that you 
>have been "far too charitable" to me, considering my Hamish language 
>and "blue pill thinking" (whatever that means).  He seems to find my 
>posts "a rich source of humor".
>
>When we left off, you were contesting my observation that the 
>Pirsigians are "not content to accept existence for what it is -- a 
>self/other duality." You evidently thought I meant accepting certain 
>precepts about physical reality (e.g., a flat world) as scientifically true.

Language is a Fountain of Humor!

Based on what experience are you determining what it is or is not 'to 
accept existence for what it is'?  Based on what are you postulating 
"a self/other duality"?


>>Let me change the language a bit.  Was the world flat when
>>human beings experienced it (accepted existence for what it is)
>>as flat?
>
>It is true that human beings experienced the earth as a flat plane 
>(within their field of vision),  They also experienced the sun 
>rising and setting at the earth's horizon, as if circling the 
>earth.  But experience can be deceptive, and their conclusions were 
>proved to be wrong by the evidence available to Science.

And Science can be proved wrong by the evidence of experience.



>On the other hand, the relation of my awareness to the objects of my 
>experience is self-evident to me.  There are no empirical 
>measurements or data whereby Science can disprove this self/other duality.
>
>>No Ham, I experience the conventional world conceptually
>>as my thinking self, not separate from it.
>
>No, Marsha.  You experience the objective world as an other to you.

There is direct experiencing, and then there is explanation based on 
memory.  Where one is explaining, one is not experiencing.  (Endless 
humor!!!)


>   Because you have been persuaded that your reality is the world, 
> that they are not separate, you've allowed your intellect to 
> contradict your experience.

Well, yes this is what happens.  Intellect interferes with 
experience;  in the experience there is no thought of self and other.


>   The question you have to ask yourself is: Which of these 
> constructs is "true" and which is the illusion?

Constructs true?  In what sense do you mean true?



>Descartes concluded: "I think, therefore I exist."  Marsha 
>concludes: The world exists, therefore I do not".

I never stated this conclusion.  I would rather go with 'Not this, not that.'



>[Ham, previously]:
>>Static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality" is 
>>incomprehensible language to me.
>
>[Marsha]:
>>For me, it is the best statement of Conventional Reality I
>>have ever heard.   Goodness!
>
>The best statement of reality you've ever heard?  According to the 
>author, Quality = Value.  If that's true, the meaning of this 
>quotation is essentially: Quality responds to Quality.

Sounds about right.



>>Language is analogy.  Surprising isn't it, how much we can
>>use this shared language and NOT agree with each other.  -  EGO is 
>>not a little pattern; the ego is the mistaken belief
>>that a controlling self that can own or disown its patterns.  -  If 
>>I am experiencing the world fully what would be the need
>>of becoming?  Becoming what?  Tarzan?  The King of the
>>World?  If I am experiencing the world fully there is no interval 
>>for becoming, no ego.
>
>Ego is not a "belief"; it's the psychologist's term for self-esteem 
>or the need to be esteemed by others.

Is 'ego' a term with no corresponding conventional pattern?  How then 
did it come to conventional existence?


>   I don't know where you're going with your remarks about 
> "experiencing the world fully" and "the need of becoming". Does 
> anyone experience the world fully?  By "world" do you mean 
> "reality". As someone recently told me, "I have trouble following 
> your unique metaphysical language."

I have never denied an external reality, only that it corresponds to 
our patterns (thoughts) of it.  Okay, my language is as useless as 
language can be.  ;-)



>The remainder of your post is taken up lauding Pirsig for his 
>"tremendous" achievement in bringing East and West together.  This 
>may be your "experience", but it certainly isn't mine.  And since 
>the only justification you can come up with for denying the self is 
>your "static patterns" mantra, it's obvious that you want to deny 
>what is self-evident.  Why should I wish to destroy your euphoria?

Meditation has been my experience, and is justification for my 
statement about the self.  There is no euphoria to destroy, but thank 
you for the consideration.



>I will say you've provided disturbing evidence that once 
>indoctrinated to the MoQ, there appears to be no turning back.
>
>Enjoy your stay in Qualityland,
>Ham

You are in Qualityland too.  The only difference between us are 
static patterns of value, but they are also how we are the similar.


Marsha



.
_____________

The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and 
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.

.
.