Thanks to Mary for the great web site and to Maggie for the Bergson!
KEN & ROB: I'd very much like to see the two of you debate the MoQ. I
was struck by the remarkable difference between your views. (Ken's 12/30
post and Rob's 01/02 post) Each was addressing a different issue, but
your styles of thought are so different from each other that the posts
stood in high contrast. It's amazing to think what would happen in a
direct conversation on the same topic. I dare say you two remind me of
the classic and romantic split.
KEN: Maybe its just a matter of style, but I find your description of
the MOQ at work in the early universe as too mechanistic and
materialistic. Instead of Pirsig's overview of "static quality migrating
toward dynamic Quality" yours is "the force for greater information
content". While I do think that the expansion of consciousness is at
the heart of what Quality is doing, "information content" just sounds
too much like a computer. You say unambigously that the "universe has a
physical explaination" and "is explainable in believeable terms
physcially". While the physical descriptions produced by physics is of
very high quality and is very useful, it just sounds very SOM of you to
describe Quality that way. I can't really put my finger on it better
than that. I have a feeling you use the word "complexity" in a pretty
specific way. I'm guessing you read a "new physics" book and saw it
fitting in with the MOQ. I've read stuff along the same lines and enjoy
it very much but, again, good fodder for the imagination, but its
ultimately materialistic and SOM.
Your assertion that "there is no such thing as mysticism" contradicts
thousands of years of human history and Pirsig himself. I don't want to
come off as a rude dude, but the things you say about mysticism only
shows a misunderstanding. You are abjecting to things that mysticism
isn't.
For example, mysticism doesn't support "magic" or "appealing to the
gods" as you suggest. And the "differences of opinion within humanity"
don't effect the mystics, as they mostly agree regardless of whether
they are Buddhist, Islamic, Christian or secular. Huxley called it "the
perennial religion" because of its ancient history and because of the
way it unites all the "Great Religions" of the world.
Many people misunderstand what true mysticism is and the word itself is
even synonymus with "esoteric", which means "known by few". Mysticism
isn't superstition or bad primative science, just like the Zuni brujo
wasn' t a witch flying past the moon on halloween.
ROB: I think the answer to your hypothetical dilemma is easy. There is
no problem. The kid will learn alot more from his Dad's loyality to
family than he ever could in a single day of school. They could spend
some real "quality time" together before and after his wait at the
hospital.
I think your objection to the apparent lack of love in the MOQ raises
lots of issues. Its the best question I've heard so far.
I guess its sheer speculation, but I think Pirsig intends for there to
be LOVE in the picture, but its too scary a word to use. There are tons
of sentimental baggage associated with the word; Love is blue, all you
need is love, gonna give you every inch of my love, I'm just a love
machine, love means never having to say you're sorry, God is love, I
love my MTV, I love pizza, my dog, my wife and my country. You get the
idea... Besides, it may have been confusing to use the word because Lila
herself was such a slut, and Pirsig knows that he's got to make the MOQ
accceptable to the Victorian "Rigels of the world".
But the words he uses to describe reality; quality, value, and the good
- are related to both consciousness and love. Pirsig is only avoiding
cliches and misconceptions by avoiding the word, but is actually at the
heart of Quality. What the mystics call the love of God Pirsig might
call the profound appreciation of Dynamic Quality.
Where is the love? What a great question!
LOVE, ;-)
David B.
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 - 16:02:48 BST