From: Mari (mld2001@adelphia.net)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:06:51 GMT
Supposedly we all read ZMM and Lila. Many claim to have read them more than
once. Why read them more than once? i'll give you my answer: things were
"understood" differently the second time around, my "take" changed, my mind
changed after reading it again and again the next time i read it.....
Why is that?
We are using the english language to discuss these books by RM Pirsig. We
"know" the language and words. i use the dictionary often to see if my
"knowledge" and "understanding" of the word(s) square with the dictionary's.
In my first philosophy class the instructor suggested and recomended using
several dictionary's because in his experience there were subtle and
sometimes not so subtle differences in definition that left one with a
different "take" on the words meaning. After taking his advice, i agreed
with him that the "definition" or at least the way they languaged the
definition left me with a different "impression" and "meaning" on what i've
been calling "take".
In that first philosophy class i also discovered that in spite of speaking
the same language and "knowing" how to use a word ,our "take" (
interpretation ) of what was said varied....sometimes greatly! The "dynamic"
of these two groups is similar; equivalent, not equal.
And so it goes.....here we are in the MoQdg......if an alien from another
world came down and attempted to make sense of our "communication" here, she
might get confussed. She might say: "so this is an example of the fourth
level: "intelligence" that Mr Pirsig discuss's in his book. What is it's
good? Where does it lead? Is this like the biblical story of babel?
i want to say: Is it possible for us to agree on things.....then i think:
that's one of those statements that will lead us back into the conundrum
wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. ( allow me to "recontexualize" a Bob
Dylan song by changing one word to fit my need: To be stuck inside A
(instead of "of" ) Mobile With the Memphis blues again). The Mobile spins
too fast it seems to me. What are we doing? Where are we going? Can we find
a way that will lead self and group to a higher good. What is "best"? Wasn't
that the question that RMP asked that leads us here now?
Some time ago i mentioned that Aldous Huxley said : "Knowledge" is public
"Understanding" is private. No one responded to this statement/thought.
To me it squares with Pirsigs statement about DQ being non-definable because
it's "private" It squares with the notion of "agreement" being needed for
"truth". It squares with Matt's: I want to say, "truth is a property of
sentences," implying that "truth" is not a thing. ( not sure about the
"thing" part....not sure a "thing" can even be discussed if it's not
some"thing".....we borrow the word in order to put the intangible into the
tangible domain temporarily for discussion sake not to trump one truth with
another)
Matt's arguement that:" Believers in the correpondence theory of truth
believe that there is a
Reality "out there" that has already decided whats true and what's false,
and that all we need to do is match up with it properly. "
We seem to want agreement on "Truth" and "Reality" and when we imply that
they exist capitalized "out there" as something to be obtained, often in
another place or life time; that is when the mobile starts spinning too
fast, we go round and round spilling out lots of words and concepts,quotes
and pages things get fuzzy and dizzying, we don't even agree on the simple
things let alone the deeper ones, it effects my senses and my life.....i
look for ground, the ether is too much, illusions become real because
they're in my mind......i want to know "what's the purpose of trying to
define the undefinable"? What good does it serve?
On this earthly plan as we know (reality with a lower case r) it with-in the
boundries of our ability and capabilities to "know" and "understand" we are
"limited": the moment we attempt to make our "Truth" someone elses "Truth"
we are reduced to "truth" and even if we agree on definition and meaning it
can only be "public" "knowledge".
You can argue with this idea and even if you change my mind "enlighten" me
so to speak, the new "reality" is not yours it's mine, yours is yours, it's
the properties and politics of experience.
In the teaching of Dob Juan. Don Juan said: "No one can sing your song
better than you can sing it yourself" i had a difficult time understanding
this even though i knew the words that he spoke and what they meant in the
context that he used them. But the meaning was not there. i thought about
many songs that in my opinion were sung "better" by someone other than the
person who wrote it. It took me a long time to "get it". Your song is your
song. Those other artist sang "renditions" and even if they related to the
song in their own personal way it could never be "theirs".
My art work is my song. It is sung once. After that it can only be copied.
Even i can not duplicate the original. It happens once. In it there are many
things that go un-noticed unseen and unsaid. Often i discover aspects that i
didn't even know were there even though i created it in time and space; put
it into existence, into motion in a manner of speaking so others could hear
it, see it, feel it, smell it, taste it, experience it...... (Q)How can that
be that in my creation i was unaware of some aspect of "it"?
(A)It's DQ and sq at the same time. It's inorganic, biological, social and
intelligent. It just is. It is Isness. It is everything and it is nothing.
It's what you see and what you don't see. It's one thing to one person and
something else to another. It's right and wrong. It's good and bad. It's
art. It's me/it's you. It's what always was and always will be...it's a
never ending story and none of the above. The End......end of discussion.
Yeah, Right!
Just kidding ; )
i
A philosopher asked Buddha: "Without words, without silence, will you tell
me the truth?" The Buddha sat quietly. The philosopher then bowed and
thanked the Buddha, saying, "With your loving kindness I have cleared away
my delusions and entered the true path." After the philosopher had gone,
Ananda asked Buddha what the philosopher had attained. The Buddha commented,
"A good horse runs even at the shadow of the whip."
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 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:12:14 GMT