hi, peter:
your message is enigmatic and cryptic. you address yourself to me but only
quote kilian's writing. was it to me or to her?
Lithien
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila2.html
-----Original Message-----
From: peter@metering.co.nz <peter@metering.co.nz>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 2:12 AM
Subject: RE: MD Quality as Experience
>
>
>> -----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
>
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 - 16:02:44 BST