[MD] Uncertainty

[MarshaV]

Mati, Ham,

I am flipping out with happiness, because here is where it gets really
interesting.  Is anything real?  NO, if you mean does it inherently exist?
No. No. No!  A pattern is not an independently existing thing-in-itself.
Patterns conventionally exist like the Buddhists suggest. Patterns are
provisionally accepted conceptual constructs built on experience.  I have no
problem with this.  It is a wonder.  It's always been the understanding of
patterns rather than the evolutionary aspect of the MoQ levels that I've
found profound. 

I've stated plainly that I agree with Bo on two aspects of his argument: the
Intellectual Level being the subject/object level, and the MoQ being a major
separation with the Intellectual Level representing a new level, a new
perspective.  But I can also agree with what Bo has been saying about the
split from the Social Level creating the Intellectual Level occurring with
the early Greeks, "Aristotle's insistence on the Law of Non-Contradiction."
and the rational/irrational split.  So I agree with _three_ points of Bo's
argument.   

As far as what is beyond all patterns, DQ or Ultimate Reality?  I am quite
comfortable with indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, and the
possibility of the creation of a better pattern always available.   

I could go on and on and on...   Like it's all projection and if you want to
make a better world steadfastly project betterness.  And like the 'self' is
not 'real' either but projection.  But may this is for some too much too
accept.  Who controls the projections???  There is not television in my
home...   

Thank you.


Marsha

 
 
 
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of KAYE PALM-LEIS
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:44 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Uncertainty

Marsha,

You asked,
> I really do wonder what it must be like when you are immersed in Quantum
> theory and really believe it is "real"?

I believe your question is closely aligned with a key question that
isn't asked often enough and IMO is a center fulcrum of the discussion
related to MOQ, intellect and SOL, "Is it real?" . Bo mentioned that
"This "what is it like to be ..." is  another conundrums that SOM
imposes....." This is true but I think it is so important to
understand that this vital question of, "is it real" is what started
the whole intellect business and got us to where we are.

I am reminded in ZMM when Pirsig writes about Sylivia's observation
about the people on the road. "They look so lost".  I have reread that
chapter and thought Pirsig directly connected this question of "what
is real" and people feeling lost. I couldn't find it. The point he
does get at is is that for the most part people don't ask that
question about if it is real because the answer is somehow lost in
objective and subject world, a world they know so little about but
impacts them so much.  As mention many times before I am in agreement
with Bo's SOL idea.  One of the other questions, is when intellect
came into play.  This is where Pirsig notes that Arisitotle S/O split
as a likely period of time when intellect is recognized. When I would
read about the early Greek philosophers, they too were asking the same
question about what is real.  It is the essential metaphysical
question.  Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus,
Empedocles,Anaxagoras and other Greek philosophers of the time were
asking that very question, what is real.  This was a time when the
social level dominated the world and if you asked somebody if
something was real they could only really defer to the social
constructs of the day, their gods to answer the those questions.
These Greek philosophers intuitively knew that that didn't seem to
make sense. There was an objective world that seemed separate from the
social order of things.  Yet.... they didn't know how to explain
reality that was beholden to the social order of the time.  Now
Aristotles proposes the S/O split.  It is fairly neat metaphysical
construct and both the subjective and objective realities can be
accounted for.  I know that SOM has gotten a bad rap and from a
metaphycial perspective it certainly had its short comings, Yet for
2500 years it has served us so well until the obvious metaphysical
limitations where identified and not ignored.

The issue with SOM is that it did a realitively good job capturing a
lot of what was real, but there was a lot that SOM couldn't capture,
namely quality.  That was the struggle and burden that Pirsig took on
and provided us with MOQ.  MOQ is a totally a different Metaphysical
perspective that clarifies the world around us and could handle the
question of the reality of quality.  One of the problems that MD seems
to understand is that fundamental difference between MOQ and S/O (SOM)
in the context of intellect.  Bo's constantly reminds us, almost to
the point of nausium, that when we fail to understand that MOQ and S/O
(SOM)  are metaphysically different worlds, this is often the culprit
of SOM.  When we cry foul that MOQ and SOM are both intellect, we
forget that comes from the subjective prospective that was born from
SOM.  MOQ liberates us from that SOM point that goes nowhere. The crux
seems to be that nobody feels really imprisoned by SOM at its core,
and naturally use the the context of "I" in the subjective realm to
account the world around us.  That is ok until start asking questions
like, "is it real".  Is quality real?   Sure it is, and we start from
our subjective realm that was born from SOM to intuitively answer the
question.  But soon the question gets bogged down in its (SOM)
limitations.  The next question is "Intellect" real?  Yup.... MOQ says
it is real, we basically know it is real but we seem to start from the
same subjective realm, born from SOM,  to answer the question.  Just
like quality the question, it gets bogged down for the same reason.
We tend to rectify this question with "thinking"(process) or "thought"
(product) from a subjective perspective as an answer to the question
of intellect.  We need to step away from the subjective realm and
approach it from a strictly metaphysical realm, devoid of the
subjective tethers of SOM to really see and understand what is going
on. Bo seems to try to cut those tethers for us, but for each one he
seems to cut another appears.  Hmmmm...... a thankless job.  Good
thing he sees this as his passion and not a job.

And a final point is that MOQ gives us the dignity to ask the question
of, "is it real" and provide us a better foundation to answer the
question.

Respectfully submitted,
Mati
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/