Re: MD Lila's Child

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 13:38:57 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Lila's Child"

    Hi Squonk,

    > squonk: Western world view is dominated by social patterns of value.
    > Subjects and Objects in the social level of values is largely a value of
    > beating the opposition. Thus, subjects and objects are not intellectual
    > in their origin.

    I think you're on to something. One of the first divisions we can infer
    from the survival needs of early man is friend/enemy, a social level
    value. It isn't too much of a jump from that to me/you, subject/object,
    mind/matter. (Enemies are often treated as inhuman, like dirt.) But, I
    think you limit your insight too much by attributing it solely to the
    Western worldview. Eastern methods of torture are diabolic.

    > squonk: Subjects and objects are manifold in their patterns and are
    > static. They are artistic creations of the intellect. We don't need
    > them, and science doesn't want them. They are a genetic fault.

    We agree on a lot, Squonk. But here I must question your "artistic
    creations of intellect" that you repeat in the following passage:

    > squonk: There are no subjects and objects in the MoQ. There are no
    > subjects and objects as such in quantum mechanics. Many readers of Lila
    > have never valued the definition of intellect described here as
    > Q-intellect. Intellect produces many wonderful artistic creations, and
    > one has been subjects and objects - which have social and biological
    > roots. Intellect has created a myth of a supersensible reality called
    > truth, which science values, but such a myth involves no subjects or
    > objects.

    Again you claim that intellect produces "many wonderful artistic
    creations," granting to intellect creative powers that Pirsig reserves
    for Dynamic Quality, "the life force." Intellect is mostly hidebound in
    static patterns. Its "repertoire" of meaningful patterns, while
    numerous, is necessarily common or we wouldn't be able to understand
    one another. There's a certain amount of inventiveness involved in
    speaking extemporaneously as we combine word patterns on the fly in
    ordinary conversation. But I wouldn't go so far as to call everyday
    talking or thinking "artistic." Rarely do we speak or write in ways one
    would compare to a Shakespearean sonnet.

    So, artistic creation doesn't come from intellect but from that sense
    within each of us that responds to the creative force of DQ. It's known
    to the us as a sudden flash of insight, the light bulb going off, the
    surprising connection we make between two or three heretofore unrelated

    That the DQ sense is more highly developed in some than in others is
    only too evident. I can count on one hand the truly great creative
    geniuses in any field. But, the sense is inborn in everyone. Children
    exhibit it almost every day up until about the third or fourth grade
    when they begin to get smothered with static intellectual patterns we
    insist they learn in order to become good socialized tax-paying
    citizens. We should be teaching them, instead, to be attuned to DQ and
    to grab it whenever it appears. We should be teaching them aesthetics.
    That I'm sure you'll agree with. :-)


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 08 2003 - 13:37:42 BST