[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 5 Sep 2009 at 16:52, Ham Priday wrote:

> Platt then returned to Andre's mention of an "improved harmonious One":
> > As I understand it, the mystical conclusion that "All is One"
> > is the same as Pirsig's "pre-intellectual experience," namely
> > that ultimate reality is not divided or differentiated in any way.
> > However, we (and all living creatures) cannot survive without
> > dividing reality into life/death, good/bad, friend/enemy, etc.
> 
> I'm not sure if this qualifies the MoQ as a "universal metaphysics", but 
> Platt's statement is undeniably true.  What is also undeniable, but missed 
> in the dialectics, is that the split between "ultimate reality" and 
> "experienced reality" is absolute.  That is, we cannot transport ourselves 
> from an objective, relational world to metaphysical 'Oneness' by intellect, 
> faith, or some mystic Sutra.  The division is existentially insurmountable. 

Must disagree, Ham. The "division" is surmountable in many ways. My 
personal preference is to "surmount" division of I-Other through 
contemplation of beauty. Others prefer meditation. Others "get lost" in 
their work. (Some hippie-types recommend drugs, but not me.) I'm sure 
you have experienced your "I" ceasing to exist, if only at brief moments. 
 
> Since subject/object duality is considered "illusory" by Pirsigians, let me 
> break "relativity" down into even simpler terms.  The human individual does 
> not possess reality: the reality that we experience is "other" to us.  We 
> live and participate in a world of inorganic, biological, and sociological 
> "beingness" that is external to us, and we call ourselves "human" beings. 
> But the being of existence is not what we really are.  What we are is the 
> "awareness" of Being punctuated (differentiated) by nothingness.  We do not 
> experience Nothingness; it has no value to us.  Yet, there's no escaping it. 
> Every finite thing is defined by nothingness; every change or difference 
> experienced in time and space -- whether it's the cycle of seasons, day 
> turning into night, the evolution of a species, love vs. hate, harmony vs. 
> chaos, war vs. peace  -- is a transitional or relational condition involving 
> nothingness.

Seems you have discovered the value of 0. Or, the value of white space 
in watercolor painting. That aside, perhaps this quote from Pirsig about 
"nothingness" is worth pondering:

"The problem here is with the term, "absolute." It has been used by 
Western philosophers for years to describe the central reality of 
mysticism. "The Absolute" means the same as "Dynamic Quality" and 
the "nothingness" of Buddhism, but  it's a poor term because of its 
connotations. To me it connotes something cold, dead, empty of content 
and rigid.  The term, "Dynamic Quality," has opposite connotations.  It 
suggests warmth, life, fullness and flexibility.  They are the same, but 
when the term, "Absolute," is dropped, the problem mentioned here 
goes away.  Dynamic Quality is not dominated by context but it is not 
separate from context either." (Note 91, Lila's Child)
 
> Pure awareness removed of its content is nothingness, and were it not for 
> sensibility there would be no content.  Now here's where Value (Quality?) 
> comes in.  Value is an absolute identified with the Ultimate One in just 
> about every transcendental religion, philosophy, or mystical concept you can 
> name -- including Pirsig's MoQ.  Metaphysically Value is indivisible, 
> contains no nothingness, and is inextricably one with ultimate reality 
> (Essence).

So it seems you and Pirsig are on the same page although the 
vocabulary is different.

  > I maintain that existence is relational because of the nothingness that 
> divides it.

Zero divided by zero is still zero. But, probably irrelevant to your claim.  

>  Physicists tell us that "Nature abhors a vacuum," so 
> nothingness is not intrinsic to physical reality.

It must be intrinsic if physical nature recognizes it. 

> And it certainly isn't "a 
> hole in Essence."  The fact that nothingness is primary to difference in 
> cognitive awareness logically infers that it originates with the 
> experiencing self.  By that, I mean that each individual "injects" its own 
> nothingness into its objective "other", thereby bringing Value into being as 
> a relativistic world.

You lost me. I would say each individual intrinsically acknowledges the 
existence of nothingness from direct, preintellectual, nonrelativistic 
experience. We intrinsically know that something else is going on even 
while we focus on what we find of interest at the moment.

> Does this mean that the MoQ is a universal metaphysics?  No, it means that 
> there are two "realities".  Objective reality (existence) is the universal 
> (non-metaphysical) reality of subjective experience.  It's the reality in 
> which we create a finite, relational world from Value.  Metaphysical reality 
> is the primary, absolute, and immutable source from which all difference is 
> negated.  Only when this negate that you and I call our subjective "self" 
> surrenders absolutely to its estranged value is the gap of nothingness 
> closed and essential Oneness realized.

I think the MOQ recognizes and supports the two different realities, the 
mystic and the pragmatic. 

> In the metaphysical sense, Relativity and Unity are contradictory modes of 
> one Absolute Reality which knows no contrariety.  It just so happens that 
> our concern in this life is with the value of otherness.  If ever we can 
> understand that Value, not Otherness, is our reality, we shall have taken a 
> giant step forward in philosophical thinking.

We recognize, Ham, as you do, the paradox of our existence. We are 
always separate from one another, but never apart. That's a given. 

Warm regards,
Platt