ROGER CANNOT MAKE AMENDS WITH
HIS OTHER BROTHER, BUT WISHES HIM WELL
IN HIS ENDEAVERS
To Bodvar and the rest of the spillover mop-up crew:
BO:
Re. your message of 3Oct. Do you have the proverb in English
about "reading the Bible like the Devil"? You and I are probably
looking upon each other as such an activity :-) The part that you
use is where Pirsig is doing a comparative studies of his and
William James' ideas, and not where the MOQ is on its own home
turf. You quote LILA:
"Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts
derived from something more fundamental which he (James)
described as 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the
material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories'.
In this basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective
thought, such as those between consciousness and content,
subject and object, mind and matter, have not yet emerged in
the forms which we make them. Pure experience cannot be
called either physical or psychical: it logically precedes this
Distinction."
ROG:
So, I should not quote ZMM. I should also be wary of portions of Lila that
aren't on 'home turf'. The other part of Lila I quoted is again ignored.
Could you let me know which portion of each book I should use to back up my
position?
BO:
I think I have spotted the source of our differences. All the static
levels are "secondary" compared to "pure experience" (Dynamic
Value), which means that also Intellect is static and secondary.
ROG:
Sorry. This is not a difference in our views. The intellect is a conceptual
pattern derived from experience as well. I have written this myriads of
times.
BO:
The "pure experience" from where Intellect derives its subjects and
objects does not impinge directly upon Intellect, but is filtered
through ALL the static levels.
ROG:
I might word it differently, but essentially agree.
BO:
That is after all the most basic tenet
of the MOQ. Unless that is seen Intellect becomes the freefloating
mind of SOM that "creates" reality; completely antroposentric and
damaging! Pirsig says that it is Dynamic Quality that creates
reality - not Intellect!
ROG:
Actually, I think it might be higher quality to say that DQ is reality, the
intellect just divides and sorts it (based on its social and biological
roots) into conceptual patterns.
BO:
Earlier in another message you said a little triumphantly to me
something like this: "So you DO admit that the levels are
created..." Roger please, I DID answer that they were created .
ROG:
Actually I said: " At least you admit that the levels were
CREATED...CONCEIVED".
I know you answered they were created. I print out every post and try to
have it in front of me when responding. My response was oriented toward the
others who answered contrary to the MOQ , most of whom have given no
references to support their views or any answer to my references other than
to label me and Marco and Denis as some Aristotelian category of 'Solipsists'
or 'SOMites'. This BTW is a great way to protect static conceptual patterns.
If some dynamic new idea threatens your conceptual pattern, label it among
already sorted 'bad' patterns and dismiss it .
BO:
But I forgive you magnanimously. It's beyond human capacity to
keep tracks of all what is said or by who in this maze.
ROG:
Actually, I think I need to magnanimously forgive you for the misquote
misquote. I agree that to even try to respond to all these views without
hard copies and notes is next to impossible.
In all seriousness, I think you and I are going to have to agree to different
interpretations. Your summaries of my position show you do not understand it,
and your SOLAQI idea has always befuddled me. That is okay. I believe both
are very high quality interpretations of experience. The difference is that
they are not compatible with each other. A higher quality interpretation
could possibly bridge the gap, but I am not convinced you would want to build
such a bridge if it threatened SOLAQI.
As a final word though, be careful whose position you support in defending
SOLAQI. You mention the devil in your intro, so I will reference the same in
warning you to be careful who you sleep with. You have jumped to the aid of
numerous attacks on the MOQ of late because they appear to validate your
idea. You have started dismissing broad selections of Pirsig in defense of
the same.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should treat Pirsig's word as gospel,
and you have always been upfront that your SOLAQI is not the MOQ and that
Pirsig disagrees with it. I guess I am just asking you to be careful at how
much of the MOQ you reject to keep your pattern alive.
Rog
"Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"
[The Joker]
"Laughter is the devil seeing himself in the mirror."
[Fintan Dunne, all royalties to be paid in arears]
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 - 16:03:12 BST