[MD] MOQ Recursion

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Mary,

We seem to wear the same set of spectacles. In the opinion of some, this makes 
us crazy. Pirsig was prescient in predicting how we would be viewed by those 
who are stuck with SOM spectacles: 

"The same is true of subjects and objects. The culture in which we live hands 
us a set of intellectual glasses to interpret experience with, and the concept 
of the primacy of subjects and objects is built right into these glasses. If 
someone sees things through a somewhat different set of gasses or, God help 
him, takes his glasses off, the natural tendency of those who still have their 
glasses on is to regard his statements as somewhat weird, if not actually 
crazy." (Lila, 8)

Long ago while still in college I began to question the validity of the 
rational SOM world view. Professors in different disciplines appealed to reason 
to justify their beliefs, yet all their world views were different. The art 
professor saw a Raphael painting as an historic relic. The science professor 
saw the painting  as a neurological consequence of the impact of vibrations on 
the eye. The literary professor saw the painting as justifying religious 
oppression. I saw the painting and realized that reason was helpless to explain 
the painting's initial impact on me. Indeed it became obvious to me that reason 
alone could not at first glance distinguish between a Raphael and a finger 
painting. Something else had a vital role in forming direct experience. 

Thus began my life long search for a better understanding than the Church of 
Reason alone could provide. Further evidence of reason's limitations came from 
the insights of physicist Paul Davies:

 "But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a closed 
and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible. We are 
barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation , by the very rules 
of reasoning that prompt us to seek an explanation in the first place. If we 
wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of 
"understanding" from that of rational explanation."  (The Mind of God, p. 231)  
 
In other words, embrace a new set of spectacles. So I tried the MOQ pair, and 
just as the song says about another kind of illumination, "I was blind, but now 
I see." 

Platt



On 8 Aug 2010 at 6:41, Mary wrote:

Hi Platt,

> Hi Mary,
> 
> Right you are. Pirsig agrees. The MOQ uses SOM intellect "to make
> itself
> known," but the "central reality of the MOQ is not an object or subject
> or
> anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not by
> reasoning
> of any kind." SOM intellect "doesn't tell us anything about the essence
> of the
> MOQ." (LS,132)
> 
> Thus, quagmires like recursion that spring from the limitations of SOM
> are
> irrelevant to understanding the MOQ. Rather, the essence of the MOQ is
> apprehended this way:
> 
> "Like the empty sky it has no boundaries
> Yet it is right here ever serene and clear.
> When you seek to attain it, you cannot see it.
> You cannot take hold of it.
> But neither can  you lose it.
> 
>                           -- Yung-chia
> 

What you say here and quote here is very lovely.  It is true that recursion
is a problem if you are trying to shoehorn Value, Morals, and Quality into
concepts, but as you say, all this dissolves when we see the _inadequacy_ of
the intellect to comprehend.

Best,
Mary

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/md/archives.html