[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[118]

Hi David,

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> > Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote.  I can only interpret what I read
> > through that which I am.  I will try to clarify some below.
>
> Right, and hopefully we both, through our discussions, try and become
> better people..
>

Mark:  I fully agree here.  I am hear to learn, not to profess.  Through a
formulation of what I present, I learn how to bring DQ into the realm of
SQ.  I appreciate your indulgence.

>
>
>  > Mark:
> > Perhaps what I write it does not impart much meaning to your
> understanding
> > of society.  A society is an expression of the social level, like a tree
> is
> > an expression of the biological level.  Language is a tool used by the
> > social level which provides us with a personal sense of awareness in
> > relation to others.  It is provided to us as a means to incorporate the
> > social level into our sense of existence.  As I stated, the biological
> > level does not have language.  The biological level has a different form
> of
> > communication, as does the inorganic. (Perhaps you are using "language"
> to
> > impart communication in general.) One cannot claim that language is part
> of
> > these levels, it just does not make sense.  The "mystic level" is also
> > language free, it is a personal awareness which can then try to use
> > language.  This explains why it is so hard to use language to impart the
> > mystical.  My argument is based on a separation of the levels in terms of
> > their "awareness".  The communication of the biological level is
> different
> > from the communication of the social level.  The intellectual level uses
> > language from the social level in the same way that the social level uses
> > communication from the biological level (nerve impulses for example).
>
> I agree with all of this except that we do use words from the perspective
> of the biological level.  The sounds we make when we speak can represent
> things on the biological level… e.g.   Ohhhhhh mmmm yeeeeessss, thaaaat's
> goooood.
>

Mark: This is a false use of the biological level.  All that you are saying
is that sounds are made by biology.  Biology is not the biological level.
 Biology is a manifestation of the biological level.  The two are very
different things.  For example (using another level as analogy), a society
is not the social level.  A society comes about as a function of the social
level.  The levels cannot be pointed to, all we can point to are the
results of these levels.  You seem to be confusing SQ for DQ.  What we see
as animals are an SQ representation of the biological level (DQ).

>
> > Mark:
> > Well yes, I did admit that I did not understand what you mean.  What you
> > reply with with does not help me either.  Language is description.  It
> is a
> > means by which we can impart that which is occurring before language, to
> > each of us.  I believe it is important to understand that the static
> level
> > cannot exist on its own.  Such superficial ideas of existence is where we
> > find ourselves in the 21st century, and is what MOQ is trying to rectify.
> > Metaphysics draws us into a realm from which we can deliver metaphysical
> > presentations.  Metaphysics cannot stand on its own in the static quality
> > level, it is a description of more than itself.  It is a description of
> > that which brings metaphysics forth. It is pointing not encapsulating.
>
> I disagree.  Metaphysics does stand on its own in the static quality
> levels.  In fact, it stands on its own in the intellectual level.
>  Metaphysics is, by its very nature, encapsulating.  It is a degenerate
> activity.  It captures that which should not be caught - namely - DQ.
>

Mark:  I believe that here we have a fundamental difference in opinion
concerning Quality.  (No, not DQ, Quality, remember that concept?)
 Metaphysics is an expression of value.  What metaphysics is expressing in
words, is what comes before those words.  Metaphysics is like a painting of
a landscape.  But it is not the landscape!  Any metaphysics is based on
something which brings it forth.  It cannot stand on its own, because it is
a description of something.  That Something is required before it can be
described.  Metaphysics is not a degenerate activity, any more than a
painting is degenerate.  We do not go around assuming that a painting is
actually the real landscape, and we don't go around believing that a
metaphysics is actually the nature of being.  This is what MOQ teaches.

Last century (and this) was characterized by the dominance of words, which
are thought to be the real thing they are describing.  As Pirsig laments at
the end of ZAMM, the world had become hollow, without Quality.  When you
say that metaphysics can stand on its own, you are making metaphysics
hollow.  It is only a representation.  Pirsig warns that it is degenerate
as soon as the words replace that which they describe.  However, knowing
this, when we use words we are not using them in a degenerate manner.  We
are using them for communication of that which lies before them.  We use
money to represent something of value, but we do not confuse money for that
thing.  Money does not stand on its own either, it is just pieces of paper.
 It is what that money represents that is important.

>
> "To the intellect the process of defining Quality has a compulsive quality
> of its own. It produces a certain excitement even though it leaves a
> hangover afterward, like too many cigarettes, or a party that has lasted
> too long. Or Lila last night. It isn't anything of lasting beauty; no joy
> forever. What would you call it? Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a
> metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity." -Lila
>

David, I have to warn you that I see no value in quoting scripture.  In
order to use this paragraph, you need to put it into context.  The context
is the whole book.  Therefore in order to use this quote you need to
include the whole book.  Just because it has all the words that you need,
does not make it self sufficient.  I would appreciate it if you stopped
throwing a bible at me as if it means something.  I ask the same thing of
Christians.  The idea that their opinion is true, because they found it
written in the Good Book, is complete nonsense and you know it.  I could
find passages in Lila to support anything I wanted, such as "Quality states
that capitalism is better than socialism".  These are just examples of a
bigger picture.  Please use your own words, and do not resort to some kind
of authority as if it make you right.  Such a thing is not very
intellectual and does not convince anyone that you understood a
metaphysical description of Quality.

>
> > Mark:
> > When I mentioned "he" above, I meant Pirsig.
> > A metaphysics is a discussion of the nature of being.  Such discussion
> does
> > contain the "ultimate", unless you are envisioning beyond such "nature of
> > being".  The perspective of the intellect has its roots outside of the
> > intellect.  It is governed by the four levels, and the intellect is not
> the
> > intellectual level, any more than an instrument is the symphony.  In my
> > opinion, words are descriptive of something.  In themselves they present
> a
> > static appearance but do not refer to themselves.  Such a referral would
> be
> > empty and two dimensional, like a shadow on a cave floor.  Static Quality
> > is such a shadow, but we must get beyond the idea of shadows describing
> > themselves.  We must look to the source of the shadows.  Obviously MOQ is
> > not new is suggesting this.
>
> The MOQ does not say we should look to the 'source of the shadows'(DQ).
> In fact, it's created so that we can look at the shadows(sq).  The first
> division of the MOQ is between DQ and sq.  This division has been created
> so we can intellectually put aside all mystical concerns and focus on the
> intellectual value of the static patterns themselves.   The MOQ is
> degeneracy.   Mystic degeneracy.  Need I repost another Pirsig quote which
> says as much?
>

Mark:  Are you kidding me?!!  Have you heard of something called Quality?
 Have you heard of something called Value?  Have you heard about something
called Morality?  These are the things that cast the shaddows.  MOQ is full
of these things.  Stop being so literal, and try to understand what MOQ is
trying to teach.  You are stuck in words, MOQ gives you a way out.

The MOQ is not degeneracy, it is a description.  Is the description of a
mountain considered to be degenerate?  Put aside all mystical concerns?
 Are you serious?  The MOQ leads to mysticism.  Tell me David, what are you
hoping to get out of MOQ.  How do you plan to use it?  It is more than just
a picture, it is a picture OF something.  That something is Quality.  Let
us not forget Quality.

>
> The MOQ is actually opposed to the 'source of the shadows' in that it is
> ultimately defining that which ought not be defined...
>

Mark:  No, sorry but you are really on the wrong path here in terms of what
MOQ is for.

>
> > Mark:
> > This is only impossible if one believes that a description is the thing
> > itself.
>
> So it's a matter of belief? I can believe that the sky is red.  Does that
> change he colour of the sky?
>

David, don't snip a little bit of what I present and then chime "So it's is
a matter of belief?".  This is disingenuous and downright despicable.  What
I had said was that MOQ (for example) is degenerate if one believes that
the words stand on their own and do not represent something.  For example,
if I say that Love is Blind, this does not mean that Love is something that
walks around and has no eyes.  If I say that Quality is the source of all
things, this does not mean that Quality is a machine that is churning out
everything we see.   It means that a personal description of Quality is
similar to the sense of "source of all things".  This only works if you
know what my sense of "the source of all things" is.  When Jesus said that
God is a father.  He did not literally mean that God is this man in the sky
who treats us like children.  What he meant was that the sense he had of
God was similar to the sense he had of a Father.  These senses are what
forms our experience of such things.  You have to get away from words in
themselves, and try to imagine what they represent.

>
> >  When I describe a boat, that description is not the boat.
>
> Really, that description is the boat.  Yes it's a good idea to think that
> the boat exists 'out there' but really that's just an idea just like your
> description of the boat!
>

Mark:  Well, we can go round and round here.  All I can say is a painting
is not the landscape, an idol is not a god, a menu is not a meal, money is
not a car, the front end of a train is not DQ, static quality is not
dynamic Quality.  We can agree to disagree here.

>
> > When
> > describe an awareness based on Quality, that is not Quality.  Pirsig is
> > fearful of definitions because others may think that what he is providing
> > is an encapsulation of Quality.
>
> Would someone fearful of definitions write a Metaphysics which is just
> about the largest thing you can define?  Pirsig literally embraces the
> degeneracy of the intellect at the start of Lila and proceeds to be a
> mystic degenerate by defining the MOQ.  Pirsig says that the MOQ is an
> encapsulation of Dynamic Quality!   When you say Quality are you referring
> to Dynamic Quality or are you conflating the two like a bad mystic?
>

Yes, of course he would be, because people would then try to pin whatever
words Pisig uses and demonstrate that there is a flaw in there somewhere.
 This is why he states that any metaphysics is degenerate, to make the
point that the metaphysics is not the real thing, but just a description.
 There are thousands of descriptions that Pirsig could have use that would
have worked.  The literature is full of these.  Since descriptions of the
same thing are available, we can compare MOQ to other forms of thought.

What you are saying, is that MOQ should be renamed to MODQ.  Pirsig does
not bring in dynamic quality until his second book.  MOQ started with ZAMM.
 ZAMM is the spiritual awakening that started the whole thing.  Besides,
MOQ is a description, not an encapsulation.  Let us not fantasize cages
where there are none.

>
> > He wrote Lila in order to explain his
> > manner of looking at things.  It was a personal inquiry.  I agree with
> the
> > value, but not with the pollution.  It only pollutes the uninitiated,
> like
> > a bible pollutes those who expect to be given the answer.  If one thinks
> > that the words in Lila (and other writings of his) is Quality, then such
> > person does not understand the message.  The continual "proofs" presented
> > for one's argument which resort to quoting Pirsig is no different from a
> > Christians quoting the Bible to demonstrate that God exists.  Pirsig
> could
> > have used any number of words and concepts to present how he saw things.
>
> I'm afraid it is you Mark who doesn't understand the message. The message
> is one of mystical degeneracy.    Your denial that the MOQ is degeneracy is
> actually spoken about in Lila.


Mark:  I am sorry that you feel this way about MOQ.  Well, have fun being a
degenerate then.  I see it as an opportunity to reveal a better way of
looking at reality.

> .
>
> Your fear of others being biblical fanatics could not be more telling.
> "Look out for Mark being a biblical fanatic everyone!"….   And sure enough
> … You are being a biblical fanatic with your doctrinaire avoidance of
> claiming that the MOQ is degenerate. Pretending that you do not ruin the
> undefined nature of the universe…. . Ugly purity degeneracy…
>

Heh, heh, I have got no idea what you are saying here, except that it does
not look like a compliment.  You feel that MOQ is degenerate, is see it as
regenerative.  Maybe you are using the word degenerate in a way that I do
not understand.

Here are some definitions:
Degenerate
1. Having declined, as in function or nature, from a former or original
state.
2. Having fallen to an inferior or undesirable state, especially in mental
or moral qualities.
3. Physics Relating to two or more quantum states that share the same
quantum numbers.
4. Physics Characterized by great density and consisting of atoms stripped
of electrons.
5. Medicine Characterized by degeneration, as of tissue, a cell, or an
organ.
6. Biology Having lost one or more highly developed functions,
characteristics, or structures through evolution:
7. Genetics Having more than one codon that may code for the same amino
acid.

Which one are you using?



> > David, you are describing this "source" as undefined.  This is not
> > uncommon.  Definitions come as a result of taking in what we are part of
> > and then formulate words to describe it.  It obviously stands to reason
> > that a definition cannot come before we create such a thing.  To describe
> > where definitions come from as "a source of all things" is simply a
> logical
> > statement implying that we create definitions.  It does not point to
> > anything as a source.
>
> Right, it's an intellectual metaphysical statement about where definitions
> come from.  These statements ruin the ultimately mystical nature of the
> universe
>

No, they don't, they foster it.  One can reach a metaphysical state through
the intellect.  This is what Zen, and other forms of Buddhism promote,
contemplation.  One can become a Christian mystic by contemplating on the
Bible.  A Sufi can reach mysticism by reading Islamist texts.  A Jewish
mystic can be formed through readings of the Cabala.  There is nothing
degenerate about these activities.

>
> > It would appear that you are bringing in the biological level with
> forceful
> > social overtones in terms of "becoming a better person".  What is good
> and
> > what is bad?  What I try to do is express myself from a personal position
> > of Arete.  While this does contain social overtones.  My Arete comes from
> > the biological level and derives its drive from the inorganic level.  At
> > the same time, I do hope that I present myself as a person in search of
> > self-improvement.
>
> We all know what's good and bad Mark, you don't need to link that to the
> inorganic level…   SOM needs to link everything to the objective world as
> ideas 'don't really exist'.  Your insistence that your quality judgements
> come from the inorganic level indicates that you still see things, as does
> Marsha, from a SOM based perspective...
>

Mark:  All I can say David is that you do not understand the levels.  Nor
do you understand mysticism. Try reading "Practical Mysticism A Little Book
For Normal People" by Evelyn Underhill.  It is an easy read, and free in
Kindle books.  Then read some books by the more famous proclaimed mystics.
 Try to imagine being one of them, seeing through their eyes.

You seem to think that mysticism is a point of view.  Now that is
disparaging to mysticism.


> > Pirsig writes about control of one opinion by another.  This is not
> where I
> > am coming from.  In my opinion, discussing Quality creates a forum in
> which
> > others can be drawn into being more aware of Dynamic Quality.
>
> I don't understand your characterisation of Pirsig, however if you don't
> agree with him in any areas and are admittedly spouting something which is
> in contradiction to what he has said then that is very curious...
>

Mark:  That is not what I said, so stop playing this silly game.  It is
unbecoming of an intellectual discussion.

>
> > Any discussion is an exchange of ideas.  Ideas can lead to further
> > awareness.  This awareness is not the idea itself, but what the idea does
> > to one's own ability to further describe existence.  Once we understand
> > that the "capture" which Pirisg is referring to as a ghost, then there is
> > no fear of capture.  Metaphysics does not devour the world
> intellectually,
> > it simply expresses it.  If I write about a horseback riding trip, I am
> not
> > devouring that experience.
> >
> > As I have stated before, the intellectual can promote the mystical, if
> one
> > is willing.
>
> Could not disagree more Mark and this is why I wrote my post.  Your words,
> by their very fixed nature, destroy the mystical nature of the universe.
>  This is what Metaphysics does.  It destroys the mystical.  If you want
> mystical understanding, go on a Zen retreat, do not partake in a
> philosophical discussion board.  Metaphysics is by definition,
> intellectually very valuable yet mystically degenerate.  There are quotes
> which I've posted here, from Lila, which say this.  If you disagree with
> these quotes then you do not agree with the MOQ.  I have no trouble with
> you being a mystic.  I do have trouble with you claiming that the intellect
> does not destroy the mystical nature of the universe.  This isn't just bad
> intellectually, it's bad mysticism as well.
>

Mark:  This just suggest to me that we have different interpretations of
what mysticism is.  How would you describe a mystical experience?  I do not
pretend to be a mystic, I will leave that for the fortune tellers.

STOP with the quotes, you remind me of a fundamentalist moslem with all
their dictates from their holy book!  Are you trying to put the fear of
Pirsig in me?

By the way, what do you mean by "the mystical nature of the universe".
 What on God's green earth is that?  Please, tell me more about this nature.

>
> Furthermore, you conflate static quality experience with that of Dynamic
> Quality.  Horseback riding is a static quality experience.  Your
> intellectual descriptions of Horseback riding describe the experience of
> the static quality of riding a horse -  not Dynamic Quality.
>

Mark: Well, here you are wrong again.  Riding a horse only becomes static
quality when we think about it and turn it into such.  Try to imagine
riding a horse without thinking.  Yes, the description of it is static
quality, but the description is not that riding itself.  It is just a story
about it.  When you see a book, do you say: "There it is, the French
revolution in action!"  "I gotta go and save Miss Lucie Manette!"

>
> > I suppose you are projecting an ultimately mystic nature of the universe
> > which somehow lies outside our participation in it.  In fact, it seems to
> > me you are suggesting that our participation in such a universe
> > is detrimental to such mystical nature.  I would look at it a different
> > way.  Our expression stems from that which forms such expression.  Since
> it
> > lies in the arena of dynamic quality, we can describe it as mystical
> (which
> > is personal revelation).  Our intellectual capability is a result of such
> > mystical and can not destroy it any more than an appreciation of music
> > would destroy the music.
> >
> > Just some opinions which I am in no way married to.
>
> Your denial that you are married to opinions shows that you do not value
> the distinction between Dynamic Quality and static quality.  I call this
> bad mysticism.  All your opinions are fixed and static and you *are* your
> opinions.   A good mystic knows very clearly the distinction between
> Dynamic Quality and static quality so that they can easily point to Dynamic
> Quality.   You want to have Dynamic Quality for yourself by denying the
> distinction between static quality and Dynamic Quality.   Dynamic Quality
> is not yours Mark.  It's not mine nor anyone else's.  It's before all
> distinctions of you, me, metaphysics and everything else.  By putting names
> on it we are trying to capture it.   The MOQ recognises the degeneracy in
> doing so.  You don't recognise your degeneracy in trying to pretend away
> the clear distinction between sq and DQ and capturing DQ for yourself.
>  This is the degeneracy of bad mysticism and fanaticism.
>

Well, your claim that my denial precludes value in distinction shows that
you have run out of steam.  What kind of nonsense is that?  It would seem
that you do not value the distinction between DQ and SQ since you claim to
be stuck in SQ.  MOQ is an attempt to rectify the degeneracy you have
fallen into.  Give me an example of one of your good mystics, and then an
example of a bad mystic.  I will look these up on the internet so that I
can see what you are talking about.

What has MOQ done for you lately?  Are you lying in a gutter, pissing in
your pants?  Have you been drinking too much of that despicable MOQ juice?
 Go easy on that stuff or you will remain degenerate!  All this degeneracy
has got to get to you sometime.

If you ARE your opinions, then where do these opinions come from?

I am Dynamic Quality, and so are you.  Stop thinking about it so much and
just do it!

Cheers David, and thanks for being a good sport.

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
>