RE:LS BOUNCE

From: Bruce Dalton (broocie@hotbot.com)
Date: Fri Mar 12 1999 - 14:37:04 GMT


Hello LS Squad!

Rich wrote
>Degrading as this intellectual definition of
>Quality is, and the rotten nature of static dogma.... I find value in the
>buddhist conception of teachings and principles as being merely vehicles,
>which must be discarded once "there" (dynamically released and unattached).

I think this is a very importan t point and i believe that the romantics
miss this point and that's why they get upset about catechisms. There's
nothing evil about static patterns as long as their purpose is to faciltiate
dynamic quality and not to restrain it. A catechism would be very useful, as
long as we don't confuse the catechism with dynamic quality.

Ultimately though, the question is redundant because there already is a
catechism of quality and it's called LILA. Pirsig didn't have a quick answer
to the question "Does Lila have quality?" He had t go away and think about
it. But if you ask me that question it's no problem at all. Biologically
yes, socially and intellectually no, I can recite it easily because it
already is a static pattern whether anyone likes it or not.

The question now becomes, how do we make this static pattern better?

And Rich definitely has the right attitude about doing things right:
>The aesthetic(dynamic) quality of Pirsig's ideas are that they are so
simple
and
>universal. To me, they make perfect sense and explain many discordant
areas
>of my interests. Yet, this is after much contemplation during which I've
>also found that for it to be taken seriously, there is a LOT of
>philosophical questioning and answering to be done.

There certainly is a LOT to question. Pirsig makes outrageous claims in LILA
and we need to look at what he has written calmly and methodically. If it's
worthy it will stand up to scrutiny. If not, then at least we'll be able to
stop wasting our time with it.

Bruce

HotBot - Search smarter.
http://www.hotbot.com

MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:39 GMT