From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 15:10:02 BST
Hi David,
> dmb says:
> (1)Phaedrus is Spock-like? Umm. Wouldn't that make Spock an outsider, a
> contrarian and a mystical Buddha-seeker on the verge of insanity?...
The comparison between Spock and Phaedrus was not originally mine, and as I recall I said 'more or
less Spock-like' to acknowledge the (obvious) differences. If you don't see any continuity between
them - well, I guess that's all there is to say about that.
> Sam said:
> Values exist everywhere, according to the MoQ, and if you take 'morals' to
> be the same then fine. But ethics I see as level 3, and as that was the
> first, I was taking them to be synonyms, and not MoQ specific terms. I think
> we do actually agree on that point.....
>
> dmb says:
> Right. Words like "values, morals" and "ethics" can pretty much be used as
> synonyms. And since this is what the universe is made of, it seems quite
> absurd to suggest the 4th level is some kind of isolated exception.
I hadn't realised I did suggest it. This is a shining clear example of your tendency to pick fights
when there is nothing to fight about, or, in the language I used before, "I don't recognise my views
in what you seem to be criticising" (as should be obvious to anyone looking at the above).
> Let me
> repeat myself from a previous post; All static patterns, including
> intellectual static patterns, are manifestations of and reflections of the
> same divine force behind the rest of creation. Which brings us to the point
> I was trying to make with this...
> dmb continues:
> Chapter 30 brings it all home. This is the source of the quote that we
> started so long ago. You remember the ones about social level religion and
> its tendency to grow stale and cover up the DQ it was originally meant to
> reveal? He says the same thing happened in the past way back in pre-historic
> India. But he points out that the old ideas about the "cosmic order of
> things" were re-invigorated by modern Buddhist thought. He saw the original
> meaning before all the clap-trap and non-sense got started and his MOQ is
> meant to reinvigorate the same idea, the oldest idea known to man, by way of
> a post-modern metaphysical system. The MOQ is an intellectual description of
> a divine universe that is still in the process of creation, with intellect
> being the most recently and highly evolved level of static values. That just
> doesn't look anything like Spock to me. Please chew on these for a while...
>
I'm fine with all of it until the last. I just don't see how it is possible to reconcile saying
'intellect [is] the most recently and highly evolved level of static values' and 'That just doesn't
look anything like Spock to me'. Because to me, that's exactly what it looks like, and what I object
to. Spock doesn't have much 'dharma', but he has shedloads of intellect (or, perhaps better, Spock's
dharma IS intellect, the manipulation of symbols etc).
You need to convince me that Pirsig, in his Lila and post-Lila writings, hasn't changed his mind
from ZMM about what Quality resides in. He changes his mind about Socrates, after all.
Sam
"Phaedrus is fascinated too by the description of the motive of 'duty toward self' which is an
almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word 'dharma', sometimes described as the 'one' of the
Hindus. Can the 'dharma' of the Hindus and the 'virtue' of the Ancient Greeks be identical?" - The
Eudaimonic MoQ says yes. "Lightning hits!"
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
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 : Tue Jun 10 2003 - 16:04:40 BST