Hi Squad!
Boone wrote:
> Basically, this approach is almost a reversal of the way Pirsig
> introduced us to MoQ -- it starts with a description/general
> explanation of the static patterns of quality, initially not named.
> The use of an example here really works well -- any of the typical
> social-intellectual (or whatever fits) "conflicts" not only show
> something the current view of the listener can't currently explain,
> but almost serves as a "hook" to the listener.
> My first concern with this approach is that it is simplistic, hence a
> "degraded" understanding by the listener.
I agree with your concern here, and the only remedy I can think of is
to start by explaining the problem. I think you have to come to the
realization of what a problem SOM is and has been for the West before
you can see the value in the MOQ. And, BTW, thanks for posting on
the first day!
> My second, and more significant, objection is that this explanation
> employs SOM [sub/obj] to express MoQ -- is this a fundamental
> contradiction/flaw, an asset due to the fact that the listener employs
> SOM at the time, or some other problem?
I don't know about you, but I had to start inside a framework I knew
before I could proceed to a framework I didn't. The clearest image
for me was the analytical knife. That's something I could hold onto -
the subject/object cut versus the static/dynamic one. And anyway,
if you subscribe to Bo's SOLAQI then SOM is really all we have to
work with. You know, like Pirsig said, to attempt to define the MOQ
at all is immoral - a higher level (DQ) being "captured" by a lower
level intellect.
> Third, the listener loses much of the wonderful insight and thought
> that RMP employed throughout 841 pages (paperback) that gave a
> "feeling" about Quality -- a deep, gut feeling that greatly helped my
> understanding.
Yes, but hopefully some people will be interested enough to read
"Lila". I noticed right away when I brought it up as a possible
topic that practically everyone had read "Zen" but practically no one
had read "Lila".
Diana wrote:
> 1. The Quality principle
> Quality is nature of reality. Quality is morality, goodness,
> rightness, value, experience, sensation, awareness and consciousness.
I would like to add something about how Quality is on the "N" of Now
(remember that one? I don't know who said that but it was great!).
Quality exists before experience. Quality is an inherent part of
the Universe. Quality is what has made the Universe what it is.
Quality is not just a subjective assignment we make which is subject
to refute, but is a recognition of the pre-existing Quality already
inherent in everything in the Universe.
No one can define Quality, but we all know what it is. Or, as Pirsig
pointed out, we could all define Quality any way we like. It doesn't
matter how we define it because the Quality inherent in anything is
not dependent on that definition. Any definition we might make would
be inadequate - having to be altered to fit some new experience. Any
attempt to define Quality is ultimately immoral. The intellect is
not up to the task.
> 4. Static conflict
> Each static level sees itself as the highest good and tries to
> dominate the others.
I think this is key. It was much easier for me to accept the concept
of DQ once I could see the forces at work between the levels. The
static conflict is what gives the MOQ it's power, in my opinion, and
was perhaps the most important addition to William James' philosophy
that Pirsig made. It made the MOQ real for me - something I could
use every day to understand what was going on around me. The whole
concept turns the MOQ into a "tool for living".
Just getting through these 2 posts alone has worn me out! What great
ideas! Thank you thank you everyone for pitching in on this.
Tomorrow I'll reply to a few more...
But as to David's question -
How many Unitarians does it take to change a light bulb?
1 to make a proposal that the light bulb be changed
1 to find the most environmentally friendly, socially responsible
manufacturer of light bulbs.
1 to pray about it
1 to NOT pray about it
1 to propose waiting until the Pagan ritual of Lights
1 to assess the environmental impact of discarding the old light bulb
1 to study the effect of light bulb changing on the Gay community
AND
3 to find their a** in the dark.
I love it!
Yours groping through the darkness,
Mary
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:38 GMT