LS Re: Middle way


Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:09:30 +0100


Hi, Julie and LS.

Good to hear from you, Julie.

Westland@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:

> Hi, I've been lurking now for quite a while mainly because I feel so
> out of my depth in such deep philosophical company but I thought I'd
> take a plunge into the water anyway.
> What I feel about Pirsigs MOQ is basically ( and this will be a short
> one) is that the subject versus object argument is reconciled by
> QUALITY. Its what the Buddha called the middle way, to find it one has
> to go to both extremes...subject (quality) and Object (quantity). what
> Pirsig meant by QUALITY is the middle way of these two extremes. His
> quality was a bringing together a synthesis of the two. You can't have
> one without the other, if you do it creates an imbalance, you have to
> reconcile these opposites with a third. They appear as opposites but
> are not......a coin has two sides ...these appear as opposites but the
> coin actually reconciles the two. I hope I'm making sense, I do feel
> completely out of my depth, but this is what Zen meant to me. Thank
> you Julie.

I think you hit at least one nail on the head. I think the balance idea is
crucial, and Quality is more likely found in a situation of balance.

Pirsig gave us something else too, though, and that is a different
supporting structure to balance off of, those four levels instead of two
opposites. And it's really interesting to look at the difference that
shift in concept makes for us.

I think that's what's going on with this huge Subject-Object discussion.
People are exploring the shift. But I don't think it's Quality we're
exploring. We are re-creating, re-defining and synthesizing old
intellectual patterns to mesh with the new.

Often I feel out of my depth here, too. And sometimes I watch the
excitement with awe. And often I pick up new insights that I would never
see on my own.

And then there are other times when I wonder whether the reason I can't
figure out what's going on in the LS subject-object conversation is because
I simply can't go back to that particular branch of pre-Pirsig thinking.
It was never a big part of my background or training, and it seems to take a
lot of effort to understand it now.

But Pirsig hasn't just changed philosophy. There are a lot of more
down-to-earth effects as well, don't you think?

Maggie

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:57 CEST