From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Thu Dec 23 2004 - 23:21:47 GMT
Hi Chin,
Perhaps I was reading you through DMB spectacles. My apologies.
Hi Sam,
No apology necessary. I just needed to get across the point that I am not
using anything James said in my thoughts other than the influence he had in
building my thoughts. I don't know that there was any, but just the fact
that I have read (once) probably about 80% of his work, I must consider the
possibility that he did manage to sink some thoughts into my head. This
would naturally happen, as being born close to a Cherokee reservation, and
growing up close to African Americans would naturally sink into this person
I call me.
I have always been close to my brown brother, and I feel my brown brother
has more to do with my character than the white brothers I have spent more
time with, as I feel more aligned with their characteristics. I have only
had a few encounters with actual Cherokee Indians, but feel that I have been
built from thoughts of my ancestors. This would explain my appreciation of
James' work, as his work seemed 'Down to earth' to me, but so did Socrates,
Shaw, and Thoreau, and now Pirsig.
I have also spent some time with the Catholic theology, and the likes of
Deepak Chopra and Wayne Dyer.
None of these have made as much sense to me as Pirsig. As he offered
Phaedrus did -- first build an opinion, then look for those who supported
his opinion -- I am guilty of as well. From my studies in other fields, I
have learned that depending too much on the words (and possibly even
thoughts) of others is a two steps back, one step forward motion.
If you spend your time, in positive or negative concentration on someone
else's words, then you build biases toward the thoughts of those you confirm
or deny; their mindset works its way into your character unconsciously.
What I have seen in Pirsig is the influence of all he has been exposed to,
which is considerably more than I could ever hope to be exposed to, and a
compilation of his thoughts building from the wide variety of experiences.
To me, this is more what is missing in Western thought than anything. It
seems to me that Western thought, not only in the philosophical musings, but
scientific musings, and religious musings as well are built on static
patterns of those who have proven themselves worthy of our consideration,
but at the same time, our thoughts are being molded by these static patterns
of the past.
I may be wrong, but from the dialogues I have entered into (not here) over
the fields I have studied, there is much more accreditation in those who can
back up their thoughts with the thoughts of those who went before them; even
to the point that it is difficult to build dynamics into the dialogues, as
some dynamic individual of the past, or even presently accepted as the
leading edge of the field does not agree, then it is looked on as worthless,
mindless garble -- there are not truths that have not already been
discovered by someone much wiser than we.
In my readings of Lila (my third now) and ZMM (numerous) I read within the
'Null Hypothesis' or it must be proven true as opposed to be accepted true
unless proven otherwise, I have found my arguments with myself generally
turn to prove what is said by Pirsig to be true.
The one thing I am having trouble with, which is along the same lines as
you, is the idea that the religion of a culture should be dominated by the
intellectual if the religion is a huge part of the culture. I'm thinking
along the lines of the 60s when both the intellectual and social patterns
were rebelled against, and the intellectual has no power over the biological
patterns which we are suffering from now.
I have no problem with the intellect being the highest form of evolution, or
the intellect/social or Dynamic/static morality, but with the stability of
the society without a defined social/biological code of morality.
This, of course has nothing to do with mysticism, but I would like to get
into a dialogue over this to try to work out the differences. MOQ covers
this, but the thieves, murderers, and rapist do not understand the MOQ, only
religious beliefs and social order. My question might be, "Is the police
state strong enough to police without the benefit of a religion?"
I am still arguing this with myself, and reading (as much as possible), so I
have no answers, just questions; especially questions concerning my brown
brother who seems to be being hit the hardest from the instability of
society. "You raise thieves, then lock them up for stealing."
Chin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?
> Hi Chin,
> Perhaps I was reading you through DMB spectacles. My apologies.
> Sam
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 23:36:26 GMT