> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [SMTP:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]
> On Behalf Of Betlach@bc.edu
> Sent: Sunday, 13 December 1998 14:36
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Quality as Experience
>
> 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.
>
[Peter Bradley] New message
Am I missing something here? It is the DQ that arrives unknown that
provokes the SQ, the shapes, the myths, the analogies. I see that we can
only experience, I like the word feel, its what your eyes and ears do too,
DQ but I don't understand the tone just yet. Are you holding DQ as the
grail? Do the Static qualities set the scene for subsequent dynamic impacts?
Intellect is King is a strange and gvery thought provoking thing to
say. My first reaction is that there are many values that I hold that I can
criticize on an intellectual level but the values hold up or they remain at
least!
Are you equating the subconcious with DQ and the concious with SQ?
Doesn't that bring us back to the Mind Matter dichotomy?
And why does so much of the writing quote Bob, what is wrong with
describing things with your own words?
Ooops, sorry, that wasn't a dig at Kilian, I was just starting to
rant so I'll button up now.
Cheers
Peter
>
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