Dear Bo,
I empathize with your frustrations, and apologize for playing fast
and loose with the MoQ terminology. (apologies to Angus for any
confusion I may have caused you too) Beginners like me can make for
very noisy reading I know - but usually there's some field-hands in
the group to deal with the likes of me! So Bo I'm sorry it fell to
you act the growler.
But here we have a great group to ask questions, love is of interest
to me, and I'm glad I did ask, because in asking, I've learned lots.
But you're probably right - I haven't fully bought into the full
Pirsig DQ, (although, I think I do understand the metaphysics of
Pirsig's 'Quality' - it has an almost charismatic attraction. I'd
even go so far as to say I see what what Pirsig attempts to present
in Chapter 32, although I recognize I bring 'myself' to it, and so
still have it 'under examination').
Because where MoQ falls short for me, is that I have yet to see
topics of "morality" handled to anyone's satisfaction, or subscribed
to by this group with any clarity or agreement. Although I have not
addressed the topic directly (I am relatively new here) I know I'm
not the only one, because time and time again, it continues to be
tried - the topic of morality or subjects of a moral nature are
brought up (almost every thread of the recent past 'goes there') -
and time and time again the thread dies on moral issues, is handled
by some meeting of SOM mind - or is simply ignored - heck - when I
arrived, moral topics were being "surveyed" (in the vicinity of :
July 10-22, 2001, titled :Immoral Acts
So yes, I've been wandering around in the desert with much of the
rest of "Lila, An Inquiry into Morals" as result. Morality is of
interest to me. I keep waiting to see the very philosophy itself
become dynamic.
But I didn't expect you or anyone else to definitively answer these
moral 'questions' (although you can if you like) People keep asking -
I was prepared to wait and see. I didn't see any harm in posing
side-line questions of the group in the mean time, often that's how
those with 'answers' sharpen their defence, new thoughts are revealed
for consideration, or sometimes I just plain stumble on an odd piece
of the puzzle. And sure enough I did! But not everybody has the
patience for it. So do tell me if you think we'd all be better served
if I were quiet.
>I'm not sure how you see the intellectual LEVEL of the MoQ. If it is
>"mind" of SOM you are mistaken.
I think I should have said (or meant to say), that intellect has a
'consciousness' glass ceiling. And that consciousness has levels.
When I see intellect presented here on the forum, it's often rejoiced
as "the highest level" - but rarely viewed in the light of Pirsig's
description of MoQ nirvana/morality (Chapter 32).
So that's the page I'm on!
And thank you Bo for your patience. It's my problem I guess, that I
have caused you such consternation, I could have presented my 'real'
concerns sooner and more clearly. But I hope I have addressed them
now to both of our satisfaction, and I look forward to your
consideration.
With love,
Tanya
I don't want to make you any growlier! - But I thought there were
some nuggets within Angus's contributions worthy of at least
consideration in our understanding of the MoQ!
>Hi Tanya
>You said:
>> I can see what Angus says.
>> Seems it's all in the mind - and on 'love' it's all bio-physiology.
>> - surely we could have 'levels' here too ??
>
>Sorry to act the growler of this site, but we can't start at square
>one with each new participant. You respect that hopefully?
>Have you read LILA for instance? The Quality Metaphysics rejects
>the Subject/Object Metaphysics and its primary off-shoot is the
>mind/matter duality, so starting with "mind-levels" leads back to
>the SOM quagmire.
>
>> Seems that's what Nietzsche is getting at. Pirsig too. And Fromm even
>> after he wanders through lots of 'hard wired' sex/love experience
>> along the nature of Angus's summary, pleas for us to question what it
> > is that overrides it. I dunno - doesn't look like a blind alley to me.
>
>There have been many "...exactly what NN says" messages, but
>nowhere do I find any exact similarity. Many say that the
>mind/matter-dualism is an illusion etc, but with no alternative they
>are soon up to their neck in it. It can only be avoided by Pirsig's
>MoQ.
>
>> I could say: I think 'intellect' is a glass ceiling. (and the 'trap')
>> But perhaps it is a singular pursuit, since it will only ever be the
>> intellect we correspond with here at our keyboards.
>
>I'm not sure how you see the intellectual LEVEL of the MoQ. If it is
>"mind" of SOM you are mistaken. Also we operate at ALL levels
>simultaneously, but focus chiefly on the intellectual one. Yet even
>at the keyboard we get mad and try to sway opinion ..and what's
>worse ;-). and such at the social level. The biological and inorganic
>are self-evident.
>
>> and maybe, like those before me - that's as far as I can take it!
>> Although I see a little 'crack'! - a glimmer! - perhaps we could talk
>> about the 'symptoms' of what would be beyond bio-physiology.
>> ... anyhow ... I'm thinking on it...
>
>Keep on thinking ....no sarcasm.
>
>> Yippie! - Here comes Oisín!!
>> >(in
>> >that sense, "bent towards goodness" could be valid as a phenomemon of
>> > Quality, but not "of mind")
>
>I was also pleased with Oisin's message, but notice him stressing
>...but not "of mind". That may indicate a true insight.
>
>> In the mean time, I send you all my love,
>
>Thanks and many returns ..sincerely.
>Bo
>
>
>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
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 - 16:01:33 BST