Hello,
PIRSIG (annotation #42 in LC)-- "If we say the intellect is the manipulation
of language derived symbols for experience these problems of excessive do not
seem to occur."
There is something that I always get confused on- this eastern/western bridge
that Pirsig creates. To me SOM was descriptive of the object-oriented type
thinking and MOQ was descriptive of a process-oriented thinking.
I also thought this reflected the object (west) vs verb(east) languages. It
also reflects what Bo said "It's like saying that
>God is one and have been given different names. That may go for the
>Semitic variants, but clearly not for Buddhism and other Eastern
>religions".
I get confused because I can't tell whether people are arguing whether MOQ is
the bridge between east and west OR MOQ is a description of the east for
those
raised in the west. Are SOM and MOQ both intellectual patterns. If so what
exactly is the bridge between the two--the intellectual level?
If ZAMM and LILA help bridge the gap for westerners do they have the same
effect on easterners? Is there different works that create a bridge for them-
sort of explaining God to a Buddhist I guess.
Erin
>Well, if you promise not to have me strait-jacketed I risk the assertion
>that the MOQ "creates the universe". Great theories creates new
>realities and the most comprehensive theory there is - a metaphysics in
>the SOM/MOQ sense - creates different universes. As told, Denis and I
>discussed this: His position was that QUALITY had been there all the
>time; In the SOM era divided into mind/matter, by the MOQ divided into
>DQ/SQ, but this "creates" a super-something of which the DQ of the
>MOQ is a subdivision, and if this is accepted .........? It's like saying
that
>God is one and have been given different names. That may go for the
>Semitic variants, but clearly not for Buddhism and other Eastern
>religions. We have been discussing the map-metaphor endlessly: That
>the MOQ is a map of a reality beyond, and it is the very same thing.
>The map IS the reality if we are willing to draw conclusions.
>But in the late fifties things were different and this was naturally what
>brought Phaedrus to his break-down, and RMP writing the ZAMM in the
>seventies did not want to identify completely with P, but became a
>"narrator". Even when writing LILA in the eighties he was cautious.
>Again, P. came from the SOM "universe" (where else?) and in it there is
>no such thing as a metaphysics in the MOQ sense - only different maps
>of a S/O terrain, and an insight like P's must necessarily be called
>madness. Yet, P. was a pioneer in a totally new territory .... a territory
>where the Buddhists have been all the time (according to Alan Watts)
>but one that the western mind has been incapable of grasping ..till now
>and Australia seems to be super-western in spite of its geographical
>position.
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 - 16:02:15 BST