To the other David's,Struan,TR et al
David L
If I insulted your religious sensibilities it was not intended, and I
apologize. From what little I've read of Zen doctrines it seems have to many
quality ideas. However there is a distinctly Western, primarily American,
tendency that Oriental traditions are some kind of dynamic "magic bullet" when
in fact it appears to me the practice requires years of discipline.and while
many follow this path only a very limited number of those succeed at the
highest level. And the majority of those who do, were raised in an Oriental
culture.
But if you read David B's post you will better understand the point I was
trying to make. That a bias towards the dynamic, which Phaedrus admitted
initially having, can be, and in Phaedrus case was, as dangerous if not more
so than "holding too tightly to static patterns (beliefs, assumptions, what we
see as "real")" T.R. suggest that we would "do well to attempt to break [our]
own static filters" which I agree with. What we disagree on is method. I take
it from yours and the other positive responses to T.R.'s post that the best
method is to somehow find, acquire, encounter, seek, "the chaos of Dynamic
Quality". What I maintain is that a more reasonable and "Zen-like" thing to do
is to investigate and understand those "static filters" and then "rebuild" and
"tune" them to be more receptive to the dynamic while still maintaining
stability. I think that this,in general, is fairly corresponds to the message
of of both books.
David B
What can I say ? Your rhetoric is superlative as usual! Given sufficient
quantities of one's drug of choice it understandable the tendency to "Forget"
values, let alone trying to understand someone else's. And certainly not some
"static", "academic" (and in your case most probably unread) philosopher like
Putnam! No, No, all that is required for a quality existence is; a mountain
top, a dog eared copy of ZAMM, a few artfully edited quotes from Lila, a cup
of reindeer piss, a mystical magic crystal, a few goat entrails, a sacrificial
virgin or two, and a Grateful Dead album playing in the background at 100
DB......AHHH.. Quality.
> Don't you think Pirsig's MOQ says explicitly that art is "higher" than
> intellect
No, he did not "explicitly" say that, and you know where to find what he
"really" said. But what he did explicitly say (after alluding to there being
Many Truths in the "Naked City", including yours) was:
" One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things
with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this
explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better
comes along." Lila pg. 114
Why would he say such a thing? No Robert, you must have misspoken. "One" does
not "seek the highest quality [static, boring, bad] intellectual explanation
of things" one seeks pure D- Dynamic Quality- though drinking reindeer piss
and muttering mystical incantations. I will admit I sure must have overlooked
those sections. Where are they? In ZAMM or Lila? Could you give me the page
#'s David?
***********
Or if one thinks that Pirsig really did mean to say "One seeks instead the
highest quality intellectual explanation of things" we could start with the
point that was politely ignored in my previous post:
"one of the things that Phædrus had long pondered and why he finally settled
on metaphysics. If he could find a broad enough foundation, one that would
encompass all the existing structure, he wouldn't have to rebuild at all"
Let's assume that Phaedrus was right and the MoQ is broad enough to encompass
all the existing structure. He then concluded that, "HE [my emphasis]
wouldn't have to rebuild at all." And he didn't. But he (or someone closely
related to him) did construct a metaphysical theory, rhetorically package it
as two novels, and launched it into my reality. I believe it was a morally
right and good that he did this. But what about the "rebuild" claim ?
We could interpret this as:
1. No rebuilding required, existing structure to be used as is, unchanged and
unchanging. Obviously that can't be right inasmuch as he spends a good
portion of both books pointing out things that need to be changed and how it
might occur.
2 Or, throw it all out and start from scratch. But if that is so, Why bother
to "encompass all the existing structure"?
3. So I was left to conclude, as I said previously, "HE" wouldn't have to
rebuild [all that existing structure], but anyone and everyone who chose to
accept his theory, WOULD! And in order to do that one could and should:
" seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things [static
stuff] with the knowledge [more static stuff] that if the past [even more
static stuff] is any guide to the future this explanation [MoQ-SSSS Stuff]
must be taken provisionally [dynamic stuff]; as useful [and stable] until
something better [dynamic stuff] comes along." Lila pg. 114
Damn, you mean I'm going to have to use my damned, old, STATIC, intellect and
deal with STATIC STUFF to figure out a morally better way to exist? Surely
not, what we really need is.. ...a new drug,.... one that won't.... Oh, drug
atrophied brain.. what's the rest of the lyrics... surely another toke or two
will help.... But Officer,... you're just a bad old repressive static social
pattern of values...I'm an idea..see.. you answer to me!... I dominate
you!...Well Judge, you see, I was reading this book..see ..and it
said...see... like Indians..and oppression... and religious freedom.. and
peyote ... see.. like... you know...Indians?
DLT
PS: Thanks Struan- What Would Buddha Do? Got to get one of those bracelets for
my daughter's other wrist. Oops, almost forgot it's ankles this week.
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 - 16:03:13 BST