Hi Erin,
Thanks for the reply. I don't know if this makes any
sense either. You must be a masochist to bark up this
tree.
> I think where I am not completely sold is the
> "hierarchy" of the MoQ.
Please go into more detail.
> I don't think quality is going in one direction.
Yes, he's a bit Darwinian or even Hegelian about
teleology. I have no opinion about it. Why is it
important to you?
> I
> think Phaedrus and Lila are
> going in opposite directions and he is on a higher
> level from HIS
> perspective. I also think that Pirisig shows how his
> idealism has a bit of
> degeneracy in it and Lila's degeneracy has a bit of
> idealism in it.
If you look at LILA as a book of Revelation about
Pirsig, a witnessing of his Dynamic Quality, you'll
almost laugh in a sort of Buddha nature. DQ is
indefinable BUT describable. LILA is Pirsig's
description of DQ for him. Or should I say Him. He he.
Get it? Pirsig's metaphysics includes himself! Its
physics about physics. It's a whole book of him trying
to explain to himself that it's ok to have a 1 night
stand. It's pathetic really, but brutally honest to a
fault. But it could be no other way because it REVEALS
his DQ. I think it's a brilliant work if you look at
it THAT way. If you actually analyze what it is, as
Strawson notes, there is nothing too consequential, as
much as the acolytes say. BUT AS A WHOLE, as a book of
revelation, as a postmodern book of revelation, a
reflexive book, a grand metanarrative, then it
succeeds.
> "I understood that when you love you must either, in
> your reasonings about
> that love, start from what is highest, from what is
> more important than
> happiness or unhappiness, sin or virtue in their
> accepted meaning, or you must
> not reason at all." Chekhov
I can't say I love Chekhov. I don't understand this
quote, what do you think it means?
> ERIN:
> Wouldn't it be the MOQ is incomplete without its
> context?
The point of the MOQ is to show people that Pirsig is
not solipsistic. That's it. If you can say Pirsig is
not solipsistic, then the MOQ did it's job. And then
you can throw it away sort of like a ladder that gets
you to the roof. That's why he created a metaphysics,
to answer a question. Once it's answered, who needs
anymore dogma? Why did he write it? He was too lazy to
read up on the tradition and he wanted to answer his
critics. He says it in LILA. Anyway, the poor fools
(me included) on this list try to figure the MOQ out
while Pirsig adds NOTHING to it. Isn't that strange?
Where is Pirsig? LILA is a sort of performance art
joke: create a metaphysics that poor sops (me
included) can't understand and watch them worship it
on the internet. It's like the movie Being There, or
George Bush. Let the projections of the people create
who you are. If Pirsig is not consciously in on his
own joke, I'd be sadly disappointed. He takes himself
way too seriously otherwise.
> What is wrong by half is the mapped out version but
> is that version entirely
> capturing the MOQ?
Notice MOQ is pronounced "mock." Who's mocking who?
This question is moot in my opinion. I guess you can
call me a moqiavellian.
> ERIN: I like how you describe it but I still don't
> understand why valuing
> can't have spatial and dynamic logic.
Valuing can have sq and DQ. Of course. That's the
conundrum. Everything can be self-referential.
Remember sq = sq + (sq*DQ), so there is always some DQ
in sq. Here's the difference: it's the difference
between black magic and white magic, the dark side or
the force. Black magic has an objective, white magic
has no objective other than love. If you value without
motivation, that can be love. If you value with
motivation, then maybe it's not love. Luke Skywalker
is white magic, remember when he is training with the
light saber? That's love. Darth Vader is black magic.
He uses his powers with an object in mind, for
example, he has the telekinetic power to strangle
people. White magic people have no "specific" powers
while black magic people do. We can all choose but
white magic is more powerful but it takes faith and a
little ugly puppet to train you.
> I like Joyce's description of epiphany. If you would
> do me a favor and read it
> and tell me how that differs from love then it will
> help to see what I am
> missing.
Ok, for Joyce, integrity + symmetry = radiance. The
radiance is the epiphany. Ok. My formula would be:
emotion + love = radiance. So maybe "emotion" can be
"integrity" since I use emotion as a full-on
expression of your self's sense as an object, emotion
as the articulation of your objectness, which is
integrity. And if symmetry is the search for beauty
within the integrity, love can be a search for the
source of self-esteem, the source or heartlight within
you that is warmth, is symmetry with the world in the
sense that LOVE RESONATES with the world, has a
symmetry with the energy of the world. When you
search for love in the world, you have to listen and
be open to it. Relating it to the MOQ, I guess, it's
be: MOQ + amor fati = radiance, where MOQ is use of
intellect to be "reasonable" as it were, and amor fati
is Nietzsche's term for "loving everything about
yourself", and what you get is "radiance." "Amor
fati" would be Pirsig writing about his issues with
women. It's alchemy really: articulate yourself, and
make love to the world and that creates light. That's
the message of LILA: Lila commits to who she is (she
has integrity in that sense), she interacts with
whatever the world throws her way (she has a symmetry
of form to who she is), and becomes the light of
Pirsig's life. We're all lights really, but some of us
are lucky to be plugged into the North American power
grid. Personally, I'm a flashlight with Duracell
batteries (a moment of my own amor fatuousness).
angst
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
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 - 16:02:09 BST