Hello everyone
Bill wrote:
>I probably didn't explain too much. The totem I used was imported
>from India. The 7 chakras are thought of as key centers of experience
>within human beings. They don't represent objects as much as they
>represent processing agents or key centers of processing. The four
>categories of value mentioned by the MOQ go in a different direction.
>They are ways of grouping the more objectified elementals inside and
outside
>of human beings; more the product of the analogical knife rending
>things in a practical way.
Glove:
Hi Bill. Thank you for taking your time in replying to my comments.
I am not so sure that the four levels of value in the MOQ go a different
direction. Remember the MOQ does not begin with inside and outside, subject
and object. The MOQ starts with value. Relationships. I agree that Pirsig is
attempting to render reality in a more practical way in our own cultural
point of view, of which he is a product. In doing so he transcends something
though.
Wouldn't it depend upon the point of view of the observer? Let's pause to
remember that Phaedrus studied in India although he seemed disappointed by
the experience. Why would that be? Did he seek out the wrong teachers? There
seems to be a persistent theme throughout Pirsig's writings that condemns
conventional academia and yet he continued to attend universities. Would
Phaedrus have found more value in India if he had put on a toga, picked up a
staff, and wandered the countryside instead of attending the university?
Like the 7 chakras, the four levels of the MOQ cannot be thought of as
representing objects so much as processing agents or "key" centers of
experience. Because we are used to separating the subject self from the rest
of the objective universe, we automatically do the same with the four levels
of the MOQ. Because the MOQ starts with experience this would seem to be the
relationship between the four levels and the chakras.
I do realize what you're saying, that there is a different meaning, in our
western point of view, behind the chakras versus the four levels. I have a
feeling that this different meaning may be based on bias, and that a deeper
understanding might be acheived by exploring the relationship between the
four levels and the chakras.
>Glove:
>
>"Also interesting is how you never stopped to wonder whether the totem
>was going to be of use while you were constructing it,
>only afterwards did you begin to question the value. What does it mean?"
>Bill:
>As the totem was imported, it didn't require much construction. I
>sorta understood the values it represented and wondered if they were
>mirrored on some horizontal plane. I could understand "the fire in the
>belly" contained within traditional reports of this third chakra.
>Were such things as courage, the stomich, and "gut feeling" related?
>There was some meaning for me in this matrix. I was excited by the
>prospect of interelating things, or, of being able to project and name
>positions by triangulating vertical and horizontal points of meaning.
>I'm not quite as excited about it as I used to be for some reason I
>can't quite put my finger on.
Glove:
I guess what I grow excited about is relations. Many times I notice that I
tend to ignore that which is of no interest to me and to accentuate that
which is of immediate interest. And I will assume we all do that no matter
who we are. Relations seem to transcend individuality and superimpose
themselves upon us all. But certain underlying assumptions must be
considered for the relations to exist as we understand them to exist.
Therefore it would seem that we are prohibited from saying relations are
things in themselves, nor can they refer to an independently existing
object, or thing. If we continue thinking in subject and object
representionality, then we are thrust into solipsism and subjectivism, where
everything is contained in self.
The four levels in the MOQ do not refer to things. The subject-object
dichotomy has been dropped and in its place are patterns of value. These
patterns of value are not just extensions of objects though we all tend to
make them into that. Unlike a thing, patterns of value are able to contain
multiple values without contradiction.
>Glove:
>"First though, tell me more about the outside of the totem. What is the
point
>of interaction between the totem as itself and whatever is not the totem?
>Why is Quality outside? And how does "it" affect the totem?"
>Bill:
>Well, DQ isn't really outside of the matrix--I put it at the outer
>edge instinctively maybe because I was thinking about electrical
>components or about the alpha and omega or something. I don't
>remember just what I was thinking.
>
>I can't really imagine anything truly "outside" of everything the
>matrix--as a concept--seeks to contain. That doesn't mean there isn't
>anything...just that I can't picture what it could be. How does DQ affect
>the totem of the 7 chakras? Perhaps as the intent to reach a pristine
heaven
>affected the builders of the Tower of Babal. Hard to say for sure about
these things!
Glove:
I guess what I am asking is whether any one chakra is better than the others
or if rather they all must be in synchronicity and harmony for experience to
flow freely. Do all the 7 chakras precondition experience? I guess the
problem with any model is that it seeks to contain that which cannot be
contained. Relationships would seem to be more Dynamic than the patterns of
value that the model seeks to define.
>Bill:
>
>Once again Glove, I appreciate your interest and thanks for the
>welcome.
>
>Bill
Glove:
You're most certainly welcome, and thank you too.
Best wishes
glove
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:56 BST