Hi David, Horse, Xacto-Knife, Roger, and Everyone else who's name
escapes me at the moment,
Due no doubt to a combination of Sinead O'Conner, wine, cigarettes
(lots) and muscle relaxers I'm taking for a back problem, I'm ready to
share my latest brainstorm.
Q1 - define DQ. I would say that we can't, and further, that Pirsig
never experienced it himself, either. What if, after years of thinking
about this, Pirsig DEDUCED the existence of Dynamic Quality? What if his
years of thinking about the subject boxed him into a corner where the
facts of what's actually happening in the Universe fell neatly into the
levels and the complex interactions between them, but left him with no
explanation as to why they were there? It seems logical to me that his
groundbreaking idea of the levels absolutely required some sort of
overriding force in order to make them work - to give them energy. So
he deduced DQ because in his system it MUST be out there. Why do we
feel such a need to define it anyway? We don't know what it is - and
neither does Pirsig. I would love to talk to him right now ;)
Though I'm personally an atheist, I can see where DQ just boils down to
thinking about GOD. Why not? God is good. God is great. God puts the
icing on the cake. In my presentation to the Humanists (this is the
topic of the month on the LS), I had to resort to it - the idea of God =
DQ - and this was among a group of Humanists! Imagine.
To me, the levels are the most important aspect of the MOQ. They give
us a logical way to analyze the absurdities of human nature. Does
anyone else share this view? David? Horse? xacto-knife? Roger?
Tell me why I'm wrong. I'm going through a crisis here that's trying to
become existential.
It IS all good,
Mary
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST