Hello everyone
To Bo with a PS to Gavin
Bo:
On 25 Apr 2002 at 3:15, Dan Glover wrote:
>Hi Bo and Magnus
>I don't see anywhere in Lila that RMP refutes Descartes other than to
>add a line to his famous one before calling it correct. I'm not sure I
>am seeing the problem here other than the common misunderstanding RMP
>tries to correct in his annotations pertaining to what he means by the
>social level. It hurts a bit to hear RMP's statement called dubious,
>boring, and un-called for. I find it fascinating. Hopefully Marco will
>find some value in it as well.
Hi Dan
I really feel bad for for writing things like 'dubious' and 'un-called for'
about Pirsig's statements and realize that it may sounds like I have
joined the critics, but NO! I am amazed by the MOQ to the point of
obsession and it has been a fascination since I learned to know it.
At this point I thought of continuing ...... that I react even when Robert
Pirsig don't act up to his own great insight ... but that would be adding
insult to injury, so I'll just say that MY utterings were un-called for.
Hi Bo
Thank you for your kindness. You know I've become quite obsessed
with the MOQ too and it is only through you that I've been able to
continue work on the Lila's Child project. It wouldn't have been possible
without your support and I thank you. I guess I am so close to the work
that I am a bit disappointed when others don't "wow" like I did when I first
read RMP's annotations. I also realize we all have our own interpretation
of the MOQ. That is really what Lila's Child is about. We know the MOQ.
One of the many lessons I have taken from the project is that
it might be better to unlearn what I know in order to see something quite
new for what it is and not for what I already know it is. Thank you for
understanding.
Bo:
The Quality idea is REVOLUTION and in order to find the isthmus
between it and the SOM Pirsig uses arguments from the latter. This I
have defended because figuring this "Flying Dutchman" back in the
early eighties hammering away at his book in the cabin of his boat not
knowing if one single person in the world would understand the first
thing. He just HAD to make concessions to the ruling world view - to
SOM - but now in twothousandandtwo when he has listeners, he should
speak from the MOQ only, but - again - this fool could have expressed
himself more carefully (Angus said I was dandy regarding respect, so
maybe I tried to sound less so :)
Dan:
I think he is speaking from the MOQ. The MOQ is all encompassing.
>Dan:
>The MOQ allows us a more expanded point of view, yes, and it doesn't
>contradict science, but it doesn't concede there is a reality without
>people.
Bo:
Allow me Dan. The subject-object view of reality presents an objective
reality out there and a subjective reality in our minds. The trouble with
this view is that (from SOM's own premises) its easy to prove that
everything is in our minds. This fact is swept under every rug there is
and called for the lunatic bin only. Science which represents the
objective side doesn't give a damn and only keeps the subjective as the
swamp it heroically has managed to lift mankind from.
But the relentlessly analytic ZAMM P called the science bluff and saw
that science is as deep in the mire as everything else (here it is
important to understand that he was a SOM analytic at that stage) and
he went mad from this "disappointment". God, you know this story, it's
longer more complicated, but from the no-man's-land of insanity he
discovered that the Quality Insight was valid and it brought him back
alive, and he started to develop it - first the prototype of ZAMM later the
full-fledged version of LILA.
I could have gone on, but what I try to convey Dan is that from a SOM
point of view the MOQ can be said to be "subjective" and only
concerned with the human experience (the "no reality without people"
you mention above). That can't be otherwise because SOM is a
metaphysics and covers all experience, BUT AFTERWARDS THIS S/O
ARGUMENT HAS NO RELEVANCE FOR THE MOQ because its
starting point is something that is prior to both subjective and objective!
I am not angry or anything, but just frustrated that this basic assertion
never seems to take hold ......and that even P. spoils it somewhat by
using the "in our minds only" argument.
Dan:
I can see your point but I believe the "in our minds only" argument
has its limits too just as materialism. The Quality insight allows a
person to see those limits since each argument is convenient to use in
certain situations.
>That is what science assumes and is RMP's point when he says
>the MOQ is truly empirical where science is not.
Bo:
I guess everyone claim to be empirical - science most of all - but all
this: Empiricism, James, Northrop ...etc has little relevancy for those
who have entered the MOQ in earnest.
Dan:
Yes I tend to agree with you.
>Dan:
>As for re-introducing
>SOM, doesn't your S-O logic as the Quality intellect level do that
>too, Bo?
Bo:
Pirsig says that S/O is subsumed by the MOQ and his way is the
known, while I have this idea that the Intellectual level is the S/O but in
either way it is no longer a S/O METAPHYSICS, but a mere subset of
the MOQ.
Dan:
>From what I understand at this time, when a person communicates about
experience
they are entering S/O thinking. But intellect is not necessarily S/O
thinking.
Thank you again Bo.
Dan
PS
Gavin:
doesn't this thing hinge on reality = quality = experience. that is there is
no (deeper or objective) reality out there separate of the one that is
experienced. you know the whole if a tree falls in the forest......
Dan:
yes.
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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 - 16:02:12 BST