Hi Squad,
----------
Fintan writes on Friday, December 25, 1998:
>...close your eyes and picture that mental room again. Then open your eyes.
Fintan, it seems you are trying to get us to escape subject/object thinking.
Ok. I'll try.
----------
David writes on Friday, December 25, 1998:
>Soon it will be a new year, a new month, a new topic and a new
conversation.
There's been no discussion yet as to what our topic should be next month.
With only 3 days left, I'd like to hear what others would like to discuss.
Should we continue the current one until Diana returns? What does everyone
think?
>Let me confess at the top that I only read Lila once and it was a few
>years ago. I read ZAAMM three times.
I feel sure you already are, but if not, I would urge you to read "Lila"
again. The MOQ was not yet fully formed in ZMM. In "Lila", Pirsig
explains, "A particularly large amount of this time had been spent trying to
lay down a first line of division between the 'classic' and 'romantic'
aspects of the universe he'd emphasized in this first book. In that book
his purpose had been to show how Quality could unite the two." ("Lila",
Bantam, pg. 125)
----------
Horse writes on Friday, December 25, 1998:
>a person is a society of cells in the same way that an army is a society of
soldiers.
>There's more though. A person is a combination of all of the levels whereas
an
>army is not.
We may be in disagreement here. I think a society of cells is a construct
of the biological level which arose long before the social level and has no
component of "thought". I think a lot of thought goes into the creation of
an army, or any other social level construct as I understand it to be
defined. It may or may not be intellectual level (subject/object) thought,
but I believe it to be true that an army is a social level construct,
whereas the body of a person defined as a cooperation of cells is not.
Continuing the army theme, it seems impossible to me to assemble an army out
of a group of completely unthinking participants. While independent
intellectual level thought is discouraged among the rank and file, an
effective human army seems to rely heavily on the ability of its leaders to
do so, thus separating the concept of army from the concept of cooperating
cells.
>I think that SOLAQI is a retrograde step from the ideas in SOTAQI.
I'm unfamiliar with the difference between SOTAQI and SOLAQI. Having not
had it explained, I imagine it to be the difference between S/O logic and
S/O thought in general. If that is so, then I think one must have SOLAQI
first before one can have SOTAQI.
----------
David writes on Saturday, December 26, 1998:
>The following is from the "Guidebook to Zen and the Art...", starting on
>page 26. "What is considered ultimate reality may be variously named in
different
>mystical traditions. It may be called Brahman or Tao or Buddha or God or
>QUALITY..."
>Pirsig's ideas are not cheapened by the label...
I have to disagree with the "Guidebook" on this, and since it was written
prior to "Lila", even the author may be ready to recant. Here are some
direct quotes from "Lila" that I think summarize Pirsig's quarrel with
defining Dynamic Quality in terms of religion.
>From "Lila", Bantam ed., pg. 113:
"The Metaphysics of Quality ... [says] that the values of art and morality
and even religious mysticism are verifiable..."
Now in my mind, for something to be "verifiable" it must be static, and if
it's static then it's at a lower level than Dynamic Quality. That, of
course, doesn't mean it's bad, only that it's not pure Dynamic Quality.
On pg. 133 Pirsig hammers another nail in the religious coffin when he says,
"Static Quality, the moral force of the priests, merges in the wake of
Dynamic Quality. It is old and complex. It always contains a component of
memory."
>From "Lila", Bantam ed., pg. 431:
"Phaedrus thought sectarian religion was a static social fallout from
Dynamic Quality and that while some sects had fallen less than others, none
of them told the whole truth."
And from "Lila", Bantam ed., pg. 441:
"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the
rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of Dynamic Quality, a signpost
which allows socially pattern-dominated people to see Dynamic Quality. The
danger has always been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken
for what they merely represent and are allowed to destroy the Dynamic
Quality they were originally intended to preserve."
To me, this is heavy stuff. What Pirsig is saying here is that religions
are dangerous because it's so easy to take them literally rather than as an
allegory for Dynamic Quality. This was my concern in a number of previous
posts, and is why I'm opposed to using allegories to define Dynamic Quality.
It is way beyond any allegory we can invent, and to rely on an allegory is
to miss the point.
----------
Bodvar writes on Sunday, December 27, 1998:
>And 'conscious'? What exactly does that mean? ... In the overall MOQ
picture >there is no such division.
I think consciousness must have arisen in the social level, as an
enhancement that originally gave SocPoVs more strength and flexibility. It
was an improvement that allowed the social level to develop more depth. If
I were not conscious of myself, how could I develop a sense of fair play -
the "Golden Rule" where I realize the value of doing unto others as I would
have them do unto me, for example? If we were not self-conscious would it
be possible to develop any sort of advanced complex society? As an aside, I
just noticed that this is echoed in the "Santiago Theory" that Roger
mentioned.
----------
Roger writes on Sunday, December 27, 1998:
>I believe that value creates and
>defines the level, and the patterns within that level, but I wouldn't agree
>with emphasizing that the levels have "purpose", or that they try to
enhance
>or protect anything.
Pirsig writes on pg. 160 of "Lila" that, "All life is a migration of static
patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality." On pg. 439, Pirsig adds that
,"'Dharma' is Quality itself, the principle of 'rightness' which gives
structure and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving
understanding of the universe which life has created." That's where I'm
coming from; the idea that the morals which define a given level are based
on 'rightness' for that level, and exist in order to statically latch (i.e.,
preserve) the values of that level.
>I actually interpret the emergence of each level as INITIALLY a way to
>resolve conflicts between patterns at that prior level.
While I see the emergence of each level as initially a moral enhancement to
the current level.
>I believe that Pirsig WAY overstates the conflict and WAY
>understates the synergy between patterns of different levels.
Something will not become a new level without subscribing to a new set of
morals that are distinctly different from the set of morals defining the
previous level. If the same set of morals define both things, then both
things are still within the same level. When looking back at the distinct
differences between each existing level, I see that although each level
originally arose as an enhancement to it's parent level, each level now is
in direct opposition to its parent. The social level attempts to restrain
the biological and the intellectual attempts to completely destroy the
social. I believe there is danger in devaluing these conflicts.
----------
One final thought. There was some talk previously about language, and how
one couldn't have thoughts without it. At the time, I hesitated to mention
this for fear of ridicule; but hey, what the heck! I have the following
personal experience ALL THE TIME. How would you all explain it?
I'm thinking about something, and words are running through my mind as
usual, when suddenly I have a "new" idea, one I've not thought of before.
The idea is definitely there. I am aware of thinking it, I know what it is,
and I completely understand it; but neither this idea nor my "understanding"
are expressed in words. The running commentary in my head completely stops
and I have to expend what feels like "mental effort" to form this new idea
into some words.
Often I'm unhappy with the initial words I've chosen and have to back up and
start again "translating" the thought until I get it right. When this
happens while I'm talking to someone it causes me to stutter. I start out
saying the original words I applied to the thought, only to realize in
mid-sentence that these words are not right; so I stutter as I backup and
reformulate the words. The language, in other words, is actually an
impediment to the thought. I "understand" this wordless thought completely,
but in a wordless way. I only have to express it in words if I want to
share it with others. I think what I'm actually thinking is something like
a picture, where concepts that normally have no pictorial representation are
nevertheless "seen" in a pictorial type form. In my case, a picture is
truly worth a thousand words. Comments?
Best wishes,
Mary
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 - 16:02:46 BST