Hi, Victoria
We're still strugling to get an understanding, but I think we're getting
here.
D:
> Exact, the cute girl kiss has biological value (for the reproductive 'sex
> drive' instinct of the body) and social value (but what a cold term ! I'd
> prefer emotional value... :), while the dog's kiss only has emotional
value
> (in the best case, we share empathy, but nothing else). But one shouldn't
> ignore that in each case, spit is exchanged. Value is multidimentional :
by
> initiating physical contact, I exchange an emotional and biological
message,
> and every stage can be judged according to its level.
V:
>What you are saying here is simply that we make judgments in keeping with
>our accumulated static patterns.
Yes, that's the static latching of the Dynamic Experience. Most of the time
it is so grounded in ourselves that we're hardly aware of it, but sometimes,
we cannot find any static latching and a Dynamic breakthrough occurs.
>But the Value that Pirsig talks about is that of the DQ which is at "the
>cutting edge of reality", before the appraisal made with emotional,
>biological and intellectual static patterns of value.
Agreed. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the
static latching that comes after.
>> One could understand that good/bad is secondary, but that's not what I'm
>> saying either. I don't pass good/bad judgment "in my head", the
>> positive/negative value is inside all along, but so are the physical
>> characteristics. They are facets of the same jewel, if you prefer.
>> Different angles of the truth. Pirsig is destroying this beautiful
>> complexity by forcing everything into ethics.
>
>V:
>The positive/negative value is inside where?
>Didn't Pirsig always claim that Q is neither in the object or the mind, but
>in the meeting of the two; in the experience.
You've just answered your question ! :)
The (lower-case) quality is inside the (upper-case) Quality. In fact, since
everything is 'inside' Quality (Quality, undifferentiated, is everything
that 'exist'), that's hardly a surprise.
What I meant all along was that when you experience Quality (a tautology,
since Quality IS Experience, but we'll have to work with this limitation of
language if we are to discuss at all), you experience the TOTALITY of all
the possible interpretations of this experience, AT THE SAME TIME. Then,
your patterns start to react, each in its own way. At each level, the static
*immune system* filters out unnecessary or dangerous interpretations until
we end up having a rational understanding of the experience, which we humans
tend to think of as primary (of course, it isn't).
>The judgement, if you like, is in this Q event. IMO, what *you're*
>describing are the properties of the object which are
>intellectually/biologically surmised by our 5 senses.
Yes, but these patterns aren't less real than the good/bad judgment you pass
on it. Value is beyond both interpretations.
>i.e. The roughness of the texture of the bark is due to it's inorganic spov
>but the *Value* of the stroking is the DQ event.
We're saying the same thing here. The biological good/bad feeling is also
not the *Value* of the stroking. If we follow Pirsig in his confusion
between quality (lower-case) and undivided perception, the MOQ can be
accused of being a "feel-good" philosophy, and that will be a perfectly
valid accusation.
Pirsig was right to say that if we escape from SOM and pay attention to the
"totality" of Experience, objectivity INCREASES, because we have a more
inclusive view of the experience. But if the only question that comes to our
mind is "does it feel good ?", you end up with a bunch of hedonists. And if
you ask yourself "how do we analyse it through the MOQ's rational morality
?", you end up with a bunch of fanatics who interpret the MOQ in any way
that pleases them, as this forum has demonstrated time and time again.
(not that anyone here is a "real" fanatic, AFAIK, but some have fallen into
that easy "the MOQ supports [insert favorite cause here]" fallacy.)
>
>I think it's similar to when someone has an intuitive negative or positive
>feeling ("gut feeling") to an experience.
>They are registering the value preintellect, while the properties of the
>experience may or may not appear to go against it's sense of value.
>For example, have you noticed how children may have certain feelings for a
>person that are totally in opposition to what that person appears to be.
>BTW, that strong and clear sense of value that children appear to have an
>abundance of, is often lost through spov instilled by parents, teachers and
>society that work to make it seem illogical nonsense and not "real".
Yes, but the real positive message of Pirsig is that this comes from a
SOM-centered education. If that's the case, and if we accept that the
Amerindians demonstrate that another type of education is possible, then we
can postulate that a more inclusive education, where all facets of reality
are researched and respected, would create children that wouldn't have to
repress their intuition, but would learn to use and develop it.
>D:
>> Evolution is going toward 'betterness', but Pirsig is equating every part
>of
>> it with Goodness, without explaining HOW exactly can this goodness be
>> perceived. This is the source of a long list of recriminations from
>members
>> of this forum and its sister one : Pirsig tells us we are free when
>> following DQ without explaining *how* you follow DQ. Well, here's a tip :
>do
>> not follow anything that gives simple answers. Value isn't
>one-dimentional.
>
>V:
>I don't think Pirsig was writing a self help book.
No, and that's why I still consider his work awe-inspiring despite its
obvious shortcomings.
>How can following DQ be explained in words, even the Tao that
>you speak of, does not come with a step by step guide.
I myself have stated it time and again. But obviously, this is only partly
true. Of course, following DQ does not result from a technique, in the sense
that a machine could reproduce it.
But humans aren't machines, and for us techniques are often just a way of
creating a 'breach' in the static immune system, so that inner change can
result. As Pirsig said, the immune system cannot distinguish a good change
from a bad one, and so it rejects both.
There are all kinds of traditions, from all parts of the world, which have
used such techniques to 'enlighten' their followers. Obviously, these are
huge and dangerous forces to play with, and you'd better be sure of the
morality of those people before you let them play with your immune system.
But it is irrelevant to the fact that it IS possible to break down your
static barriers, and let DQ shine forth.
>IMO the Tao is very much about goodness.
Yet its traditional image is the yin/yang symbol... Darkness and Light
intertwined.
>
>In Lila, the Tao-like Quality of ZAMM, was divided into static and Dynamic
>quality in order to make sense of questions that could not be answered by
>Quality alone, and I think it accomplished this.
>So that DQ became the indefinable/the all pervading/the Tao.
>
>I would say that Beauty and Truth are *born* of Quality.
>Mind you, sometimes I feel as if people are playing word games, and the
real
>feel to the MoQ gets lost.
It's all word games. We're not searching for truths but for "good tricks".
;)
Taking it any more seriously opens the door to fanaticism : "The Tao that
can't be laughed about isn't the Tao."
The "real feel" comes from pointing at the moon of Quality, but many of us
still mistake the finger for the moon. The quality (lower-case) of the MOQ,
for me, comes from the fact that it showed me how all systems of thoughts
(the ones I held so dear) were ultimately creations of Man. It provided me
with another map that included them, expanded them (sometimes in ways I now
find incorrect or naive) but also proclaimed itself to be another veil
between myself and Quality, one I'd eventually would have to push aside. The
real worth of the MOQ is that it points to the inherent weakness in all maps
: there's only so much ground they can cover for you. If you want more,
start packing ! :)
>
>D:
>> It creates all kind of nasty confusions for those who haven't (and
>> cannot, for lack of any indication how) experienced the Dharmakaya light
>> (where distinctions are dissolved into pure Quality).
>
>V:
>I think very few people are prepared to sacrifice enough to attain that
>state, but most importantly, very few would be able to handle it without
>tipping over into "insanity".
A warning you're right to reiterate. Too many idiots try chemical
"short-cuts" and end up frying their brains... :(
>V:
>Unfortunately, it's been a while since I have read both books all the way
>through, and I should go through them again to see if I'm missing something
>(as well as for the pure enjoyment).
>But it seems that you are complaining that Pirsig has not adequately
>outlined steps on how to follow DQ (and reach Nirvana?), and in the same
>breath, saying that he has made the MoQ too methodical.
My above comments on "how to follow DQ" will (I hope) clarify that apparent
contradiction for you.
>But having said that, I have to admit that when I started to ponder on
Lila,
>it was rather depressing because it made a lot of sense but seemed to lack
>soul. But I find that my feelings toward it
>keep changing. It has cleared a few things up for me but left much
>unanswered, which is OK. I didn't expect to find the answer to all things
in
>it, nor, I dare say, did Pirsig intend it to be.
Which is why (despite all the fuss and rantings and accusations) I still
admire and respect Pirsig. Hey, I wouldn't have been able to write this
stuff myself if it hadn't been for him ! :)
>
>BTW, I apologize if I haven't addressed all of your issues but time seems
to
>be limited these days.
Don't worry. Mainly we write here to clarify these things for ourselves. ;)
Go easy
Denis
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:28 BST