From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jan 11 2003 - 16:20:39 GMT
Hi Zykaine:
Welcome to the MoQ discussion group. You start off with a great
question.
> Why is it that SOM intellect creates a more advanced and dynamic quality
> than those indians Pirsig talks about, who are supposed to be suspicious to
> SOM and more intuitive to dynamic quality? You would think that indians
> should have more advanced modes of living. This isn't the case though. Why?
You could ask the same question about Buddhist countries which were
totalitarian and backward for centuries.
One possible answer goes back to the recent discussion here about
whether mystic Dynamic Quality in the MoQ is "privileged" over static
quality (meaning in plain English "more important than"). I've been
vacillating on the answer, but your question suggests the answer is
definitely "No."
The failure of Indians and Buddhists is a failure of "static latching."
While I'm sure they learned in a Dynamic revelation the value of
measurement, they never, like Galileo and Kepler, locked on to it as the
way to uncover nature's static patterns. Once the power of
measurement was discovered in practical applications, the "objective"
world was born and SOM became the key to material progress.
Postmodernists are trying to turn back the clock by denying there's any
such thing as a patterned, objective world. But who wants to be dragged
back to living in a mud hut or a teepee? Not me. But I digress.
So failure to recognize the value of static latching is my answer for the
moment. I'm sure others will have answers too and it will be up to you to
decide on the "best" which, in Pirsig's broadened worldview beyond
SOM limits, will be a moral decision.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 11 2003 - 16:23:53 GMT