Rick , Bo and foci,
Rick , you wrote :
>Not much of an improvement.
[Bobby] Indeed ! But that is up to us to improve , if we really want to.
The onus is upon oneself to derive value from the vision and experience
of another. That was the whole point of ZAMM - the real cycle you are
working on is a cycle called yourself. ZAMM was all about Pirsigs journey
within himself, always enticing the reader to do the same, to search for
values that sprout from within oneself - the outside world can only act
as a catalyst , that too if we ourselves allow for it. The tool was
analytic, for its best suited purpose - SElF ANALYSIS( most people
fear to tread this path).
In LILA he goes into Metaphysics as a means to co-relate values within
one culture as well as cross-cultural, and wants to breach the wall
of the cultural immune system through an inquiry into morals using MoQ.
An inquiry into morals can only take place if deep down we feel
that something has gone wrong somewhere, otherwise why bother ?
If one operates from the assumption that all is good and all is right,
then what is there to inquire about ? The valid arena for that kind of
indulgence is the church, or some form of meditation, not intellect.
The purpose of intellect is inquiry.
And he suggests MoQ as a means for this inquiry but warns :
>Metaphysics is a restaurant which has a 30000 item menu but no food .
How appropriate indeed ! The MoQ.org is a restaurant where we bring our
recepies(descriptions of experiences and visions) for the various items
and compare it with the recepies of others. But we still have to go home
every evening and cook our own food ! And every night as we digest the
food, made from several recepies, we wonder if it tastes better or worse
and what more we can do for it to become an ideal dish. But do we really
know what we hunger for ? An inquiry into what has gone wrong . If we
come to the MoQ with some other goal and purpose then I wonder if I
am wasting my time and of others.
Bodvar, you wrote:
>The joker, is Dynamic Quality I hope.
[Bobby]Of cource, but more in terms of how it manifests.
And unless we go into how it manifests , I do not see how
we can make progress. Now pirsig also let Quality alone for
so many years before defining it in metaphysical terms of DQ
and SQ. However, as soon as one tries to show how DQ manifests,
everybody else will be take out their analytic knives and go for
the kill.
>"Without moral force" is an impossibility in the MOQ.
I hold the position that "DQ, the quality of freedom that creates
the world in which we live" is primarily (though not entirely)
the moral cutting edge of all experience or simply the "moral force "
Yes in the MoQ, we can assume that everyone here is "with moral
force" but the concern should be to identify the parameters that
devours this moral force , or else how can the MoQ be useful for
society ? or is that no concern of ours? If we say that everyone
is with full moral force in society too, then what distinguishes
the Hitlers from the Einsteins?
>Intellect's "intelligence" is - as you say - analysis or reason which has a
>dynamic/creative counterpart that may be called synthesis, but
>there is an "intelligence" of every level with a similar creative
>component. Biology's dynamic component created Social Reality
>and Society's created Intellectual Reality. But I would say that
>Intellect's STATIC "intelligence" is analysis alone. The synthesis is
>DQ (which works night and day to surpass Intellect).
>I agree, but "synthesis" cannot be fully static. Why not simply
>regard the Intellectual level as subject/object-analysis and the
>Quality idea as the synthetical "lightning flash" that put all the
>pieces of Pirsig together?
What you are saying is not incorrect but in my opinion insufficient
to deal with the problem at hand. For example how can you show the
distinction between intellegence and quality unless the distinction
is that of the difference in DQ.
Of cource the synthesis tool is far more dynamic in nature than the
analytic tool, but does that mean that everything dynamic necessarily
is DQ and anything else is SQ ?
IN other words you absolutely rule out the possibility that DQ and
SQ can be further subjected to Metaphysical splits ?
You may realise one day that DQ can also and does become STATIC.
(But not for long - DEATH IS THE LIBERATOR )
I would like to keep things simple, but I doubt very much if we can
get the desired results that way. Incidentally you may be surprised
to know that a similar Metaphysics like the MoQ has been around in
different cultures around the world for thousands of years. Only
the terminology is different and only for "technicians", terminology
is everything, not for genuine explorers.
I will therefore not harp on this issue anymore unless anyone is
interested.
All is not right.
Bobby
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST