[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[118]

Mark comments below:

On Apr 8, 2012, at 5:32 AM, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> Andre stated to David Harding April 7th 2012:
> 
>> I think Phaedrus says somewhere in LILA that with a term like 
>> 'nothingness' you won't even get a hearing in the Western 
>> philosophical/scientific community. You won't get taken seriously. But 
>> they cannot get around a term such as Quality or value for that matter.
> 
> Ant McWatt comments:
> 
> Andre,
> 
> You're thinking of a paragraph in Pirsig's letter dated August 17th 1997 in the McWatt-Pirsig Letters PDF:
> 
> "People with scientific training often think of the term , 'mystic' as a synonym for 'demented,'
> but by mystic I only mean that which is known but is inherently without any kind of intellectual 
> definition.  If Dynamic Quality were merely called 'God' or 'oneness' [such people] would have it
> shoved out of philosophic bounds without question.  But they cannot shove Quality out of bounds.  
> Mystic or not, they can't deny it exists.  They cannot eliminate it as a meaningful term.  In fact 
> 'meaningful' means 'having social or intellectual quality'."

With all respect to Pirsig, the quote above indicates that he has no concept of what "God" means.  God is not definable.  He falls into the modern trap of treating God like an object.  It is no more an object than his Quality.  Understanding this brings one respect for those with a dynamic relationship with "what is".  We can objectify all we want, but that is missing the point of MoQ.  Comparisons can be useful, but only if used with positive intent.  Trying to elevate Quality at the expense of fundamental understanding is somewhat farcical.  Quality is not farcical.  The term merely is condescending and comes from ignorance.  Let's not go there, we are better than that, we have belief.

Cheers,
Mark
> 
> ---CUT---
> 
> 
>> Andre:
>> Not sure if you read my post to Ron, but I do not think that words 'are 
>> ruining the ultimately undefined nature of reality'. The Buddha rests 
>> just as comfortably in the gears of a motorcycle as in the words of a 
>> text. I prefer the use of the term 'partial'. I mean, if words are 
>> ruining everything then we may as well stop talking altogether, in the 
>> same way that if certain posters consider sq to be an illusion then we 
>> may as well stop living. I mean it just nullifies everything. As if, 
>> indeed everything in the universe can be described by the twenty-six 
>> written characters. Not on.
> 
> Ant McWatt comments:
> 
> Yes, in other words, it's fine to use words to describe the world in which we
> live as their use improves our (general) quality of life - as long as it's remembered the 
> descriptions they create are limited and will always leave something out; 
> being analogous to a one page Abstract for a one thousand page book. 
> 
Indeed well put, god is just a word and is not God.  Let us not confuse the two with trite disparagement.  It is debasing to our fellow man.

Cheers again,
Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
>                         
> 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