Hi, Rob, Bo, Angus and all others participating in this thread,
It's nice to have you all here, trying to get some sense out of this mess...
;)
I'll start answering Rob, since he has some interesting points to get
across. As you'll see, I don't have much to disagree with.
ROB
Denis, Bo and all
We must remember that Quality is a pragmatism philosophy. The MOQ is
of
higher quality because it offers more quality in the lives of those who
believe in it.
DENIS
Yes, I think that's a valid way of putting it. The worth of the MOQ is in
the experience of it. The foundation of the MOQ is about ATTENDING to
experience and reality (but that's two ways of saying the same thing). The
rest is catechism for the Rigels of this world, who want everything tagged
down in nice little letters.
ROB
It's a self fulfilling prophesy in a way. The believing in
the existence of quality offers more quality, although without quality, you
would have nothing less because you don't see quality's existence.
DENIS
Another way of saying it would be that the MOQ offers a way above the
absolute truths (and appending platypi) of SOM, a way that can only be seen
by following the Quality idea along. My main disagreement with Bo is that
the "conversion" should NOT be an intellectual one. The idea of Quality and
the MOQ should not become new Absolutes one has to *believe* in to accept
them. One has to experience the problems of SOM first, to ache for a
certainty that cannot be found, and then to follow Pirsig to the "high
country of the mind" were the non-dual Quality is in sight (though not
reached), and where all valleys of thought lie at our feet, waiting for us
to choose which ones we'd PREFER to explore for a while. The MOQ is one of
those valleys, but with a clearer path toward the high country. The high
country, though, that space between the Quality Event and metaphysics is not
to be forgotten once one decides to thread into one of the valleys.
Bo tries (IMO, but I might misunderstand him) to drag down Quality into one
of the valleys and call that valley "Quality". But Quality, the event of
undifferentiated experience, is always above (though not separated), and by
bringing it down you forget that there ever was a path up there. I think
this, in essence, is the criticism John applies to Pirsig himself (which I
think is somewhat too severe, although I can see where this is coming from).
Quality is a path to "experience", not one to blindly agree with. If you
tell people that learning about the MOQ can help them walk up that path, you
must not forget to tell them that this path will only get them that far, and
that upward from there, they're on their own. If you tell them that
"MOQ-thinking" is the Quality level, where do you go from there ?
Can anyone seriously tell us that they had a mystical experience that left
them enlightened by reading 'Lila' ? That from there on, they could see
Quality in all things and never doubt they were following the best course ?
I do not think so.
ROB
The level lines are another matter entirely. As long as we all agree
that
the MOQ is of higher quality, dividing the levels up is a meaningless
exercise. The division is in our heads and has no significance on the actual
world. This conversation becomes all about if a platipus is a mammal or a
reptile. Basically a matter of aesthetics.
DENIS
Amen to that.
For me, the MOQ has two sides. One describes the four levels of Static
Quality (their genesis, interactions, relative importance) and makes a few
claims on the matters of morality about this. This part I call the
intellectual valley. Ultimately, this is the one with the least importance,
because it does nothing for your personal growth. It's a catechism of
Quality, to spin at those who, like Rigel, will not stand for "undefined
Quality". It's an intellectual tool, nothing else. And it has its flaws, as
people on this forum and its sister one have always agreed.
The other side deals with the nature of Reality (undivided, pre-intellectual
perception), the nature of the work Pirsig is about to unfold (the MOQ, a
metaphysics) and his reasons for doing it in this way and not another. This
part is narrative, metaphorical, allegorical and sometimes even poetic.
This, I believe, is because no one can talk about such matters with the
weight of certainty behind his words. We are in the land of choices, here,
and ultimately these stem from our experience, not from a closed system of
thought. This is the aesthetic land, the land of visions, which ultimately
decide which logic to follow. This is the high country of the mind. And
ultimately, Pirsig can not tell us what IS this place, because this is not
the way it works. This place is not an intellectual construct, it's a STATE,
which can only be described in allegorical or metaphorical fashion (like my
"Eye of Reality", or Pirsig's "high country of the mind"). We can still
describe our wanderings there, but that's all. Sure, those descriptions will
be words, concepts, maps, but as Platt stated : "better to have a map when
you're going into unknown territory" (or words to that effect ;).
Still, the treck is ours to make, the path ours to thread.
ROB
I like my world to have a closed system to work in and live with
until it
fails me. A system like that gives me confidence. It doesn't make sense to
leave a metaphysics all the way open, even the most fundamental assumptions
like that I will eventually die, or that gravity will pull me down on the
next step are left open along with it. Maybe there is no absolute truth to
you Denis, but I am willing to bet my life that my next step will not send
me hurdling off into space, GRAVITY is there, like it or not, let's close
the book on it, please!
DENIS
I understand what you mean, Rob, but let me reassure you : this is not the
MOQ I'm defending. All the answers of science to the universe mysteries are
high-quality answers to me, and will always be. I see no reasons to doubt
the *experience* of gravity, and I can assure you the Einstein *explanation*
of it satisfies me fully, intellectually speaking ! Until the next best one,
of course... which I'll check to see if it matches my experience ! :)
ROB
I understand you not wanting to close the whole
thing, seal the metaphysics off all the way, but that's what Dynamic quality
is for anyway, to counter the urge to latch, it's all part of the MOQ
though. I still realize that it is ME who's closing it by putting it up a
full level, what does it matter anyway, the levels are in my head. That's
part of the MOQ too. It's almost like the rationalist vs. empiricist debate.
DENIS
All well and good, then, Rob. But if I catch you selling the SOLAQI MOQ as
the gospel truth, do not expect me to seat by the side. :) I'll always be
there to remind you that whether you like it or not, you cannot close your
system. It's leaking, Rob, it always will. Pirsig warned you about it. And
the leaks is where we find our way up to the high country, which is more
precious to me than all the systems in the world.
ROB
You can't take down a quality philosophy with logical attacks, I
AGREE, but
that doesn't necessarily make it untouchable, you can take down a quality
philosophy with quality attacks. Just as you can take down a logical
philosophy with logical attacks, as Pirsig did. We don't even speak in
quality language here, we cannot even come close to mounting an attack on
something's quality. That's not to say it can never happen.
You have to see the beauty of the SOLAQI idea, if you do not, that
may be a
quality attack. Aesthetically speaking what do you like about it, what do
you dislike about it? Is it too static for your tastes? That's where the
real damage is done in a quality an attack, proving it's ugly.
DENIS
Obviously, I cannot PROVE it's ugly (or I'll have to invent a SOMOQ ;), but
I can say I find it so, and explain why. Which is what I've been doing all
along, mind you. It's ugly because it's dogmatic, because it's not
self-coherent and because it creates more problems than it solves. All
detailed in my previous posts.
I think we both agree about the high country, Rob, and all I'd like now is
to be able to say the same thing about Bo. I'd also like you both to either
abandon the SOLAQI or build it into a coherent system, but sometimes people
invest too much of themselves into an idea, and letting it go feels too much
like self-mutilation for that to ever happen. I hope you'll both take the
second option and continue your personal growth through it.
And a Happy Christmas to you all ! :oD
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 - 16:01:42 BST