"What a world, What a world!" (the wicked witch of the west as she
melted-'Wizard of Oz')
Hi My Name is Tom and this is my first (and maybe last depending on my
reception)post.
I recently subscribed and have been fascinated by the lively exchanges of
ideas.
I am interjecting for two reasons: All of you need to go back and read or
reread Kant,
Hume, Shopenhauer, and Existentialists in general. These are old arguments
rephrased.
"Is DQ/SQ one or two" Which came first the chicken or the ideal of the
chicken?
My point is that The limits of logic have been WELL delineated long before
Pirsig.
As far as I am concerned the Genius of ZMM is the lack of an attempt to
over-analyze the Toa
In as much as language is incapable of doing so. ZMM Is the ultimate
sophist rhetoric
of our time(which is a compliment despite the dictionary definition of
sophism).It IS
Dynamic Quality at its best-that is, the best that a static recollection
of Q can be.
To attempt to create a static 'analytical tool' around it is misguided in
my opinion.
The Mysterium Conjunctionis of Jung, Whom I rever as much as Pirsig, can
not be achieved by
Analyse but must be experienced, and in the end that is , must be , and
forever will be,
a mystical event, existential,and 'religious'.
Thanks for listening,
Tom
P.S. My second reason? You tell me ....
At 06:17 PM 8/15/99 EDT, you wrote:
>ROGER REPLIES TO DAVID B.
>THAT DQ IS 24/7
>
>Hi David and gang!
>
>Let me start with some quotes from David.
>
>DAVID [Combining two posts]:
>This is how questions of our perceptions are tied in with the overall
>scheme of the MOQ. Epistemologically speaking, our perceptions
>are indirect. They are heavily mediated through all the layers of
>reality that preceded the intellect in historical evolution.
>
>I'd agree that DQ can be percieved directly,
>but not by the intellect. The fact that a baby is one example clearly
>shows this direct experience is non-intellectual. An infant has not yet
>developed an intellect of even social values. To be moved by music or
>shaken by a heart attack doesn't seem particularly intellectual either.
>And didn't Pirsig say explicitly that the Brujo was just acting out of
>his own internal conflicts and had no "plans" to change his culture. He
>just did it, as they say in Nike town. But this has very little to do
>with mediation through the levels. DQ is above and beyond all the
>static levels. You know, its the first split in the MOQ; static and
>Dyanamic Quality.
>
>ROGER:
>Another distinction between members is those that view DQ as some hallow
>event that
>occurs to brujo's, Einsteins and Tibetan monks on days of the total eclipse,
>and those of us
>that view it as everyday all-day 24/7 experience. David and Glove and
others
>fall squarely
>in the former camp and I fall into the latter. This creates a chasm in
>understanding that
>constantly interferes with our progress.
>
>Granted, Pirsig uses dramatic moments such as heart attack survivors and
>Mystics and
>Brujo's to illustrate his points, but he also clearly explains that he is
>talking about everyday
>experience. The problem is that we tend to lose ourselves in static, veiled
>experience that
>is a pale shadow of Direct Experience. Mystics and babies and hurricane
>survivors are
>three vastly different situations to describe the lowering of the veils (in
>the baby’s case the
>veil hasn't been woven yet).
>
>As for David's comment that "I'd agree that DQ can be percieved directly,
but
>not by the
>intellect." I find it confusing. DQ cannot be perceived, IT IS
PERCEPTION.
>Perception
>realized or conceptualized is sq. The perception can be conceived as
>biological (the baby),
>social, or intellectual. An intellectual perception is creative thinking.
>Sq is patterned,
>objectivized past experience. DQ is the eternal now prior to any
>categorization.
>
>
>DAVID:
>I'd agree if you'd said the intellectual level
>is the most free and has the greatest chance to respond to DQ. It just
>seems like a rather obvious contradiction to say that any static level
>is dynamic. Wouldn't it be better to say that the intellectual level of
>static patterns is the most complex and rapidly evolving level?
>
>ROGER:
>Again, I find this confusing. I think it would be best to say that “
>experience which we
>later reference as intellectual quality is the most free and complex and is
>evolving the most
>rapidly.”
>
>Later in your post you go on to show how our intellectual models are
>interconnected
>between the levels. These are pure sq. The MOQ is a high quality
>intellectual static
>pattern. DQ is direct and unfiltered, unbuffered and unmediated.
>
>Though I was wrong once.....
>
>Rog
>
>
>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
>
>
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 - 16:03:09 BST