Hi Lithien
In ZAMM, Pirsig says at one point, (I believe it was toward the end when he gets into the events at the University of Chicago) declares that Phaedrus' theories were important as they comprosed a bridge between Eastern and Western thought. Now, I don't believe that this claim is necessarily justified within the pages of ZAMM, but with LILA I believe he has suceeded. The concept of Dynamic Quality seems to coincide with that part of zen thought that contends that reality must be experienced. Dynamic Quality *must* be experienced! Our talking about or attempting to define it is not realizing it or experiencing. Where I personally, (and where Pirsig seems to as well) is the further contention that the reality that cannot be experienced is not actually reality. Experience society. Everyone try. Experince matter, subatomic particles. I have a difficult time with this. What the MOQ contends is that there is another portion of reality that can be thought about -- the static lev!
el. And within that part, the
intellect is King. Had Pirsig not made that distinction, he would have failed to convince that his MOQ was a better map of reality than a SOM, or anything else. I feel this *is* a bridge between Eastern (or at least zen) thought and the Western mindset with its dependence on and reverence for logical/intellectual thought.
Personally, I think this is why the MOQ has so much value: because it discusses or maps out, or what have you, the two (Fintan may appreciate the symbolism of two) perhaps fundamental divisions of reality: that which we can define and that which we cannot. The Dynamic and the Static. The Intellect and the Experience.
That was my two cents,
Kilian
(Hopefully the text will wrap via sending, although it is not doing so on this foreign computer. IF not, my apologies)
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST