From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Apr 03 2004 - 05:52:38 BST
Rick and all:
Hey focus folks. Unless its against a rule I've forgotten, I'll use this
post to reply in the normal way AND to summarize this month's discussion.
Rick said:
Even taking the chronology you suggest into account (which is clearly
correct), the question still remains, should mysticism be identified with
the undivided (Q) or with one of the divisions (dq)? ...Let me break it down
for
you with a multiple choice question. According to Robert Pirsig, mysticism
should be identified with (a.) Quality (the undivided whole) alone, (b.)
dynamic quality (a subset of Quality which excludes static patterns) alone,
(c.) both, (d.) neither. --- your choice?
dmb says:
Yes, the question still remains. Instead of answering the question I've been
trying to make the case that the question is based on a misconception, that
it is not a valid question. But the question remains because that effort did
not convice. And I'm twice vexed by this lack of success because the
question that remains is not the question of the month. As Hugo writes on
the final day of the month, "I don't think the actual question has been
addressed". And now that the time is gone I wonder if its possible to tie in
the remaining question with the actual question. The idea of trying to get
there from here strikes me as a very fun kind of impossibility. I mean, I
don't won't to persist in being off the topic (What would the moderator
say?) but the question, apparently, DOES remain. Oh, Jeez. I think we need
to extend the topic. Or rather, we need to actually get to the topic. Ha!
Let's call that a summary. I'm just going to go propose we just keep right
on going. Then maybe I can try to make the connection between Sam's question
and mine.
Until then, let me reply to Rick's breakdown. The undivided mystical reality
is indentifed with (a.)Quality in ZAMM and the beginning of Lila, it is
indentified with (b.)DQ in chapter nine of LILA and beyond or anytime one is
discussing Pirsig's MOQ, and it can be (c.)both provided that one is NOT
using the term "Quality" as Glenn suggested, "as a shorthand for the two
types of quality - DQ and SQ - taken together." It can be (c.)both only if
one uses Quality in the ZAMMish sense. Otherwise one has the problem of
refering to rocks, bodies, ideas and other static patterns as the mystical
reality. But mostly I think the question is a bad one. I think there are
many terms for the undivided mystical reality and they even reflect
differing conceptions about it. This is not a problem. Words are not up to
the task, so each of them gets at it in some way, but no term is worth
clinging to, no idea is worth clingling to. When talking about such things,
the more terms and ideas, the better. It practically takes an artist to talk
about it with any success at all. The next best thing for hacks like me, is
to get at the inexpressable idea that's behind a thousand names for the
mystical reality. And it seems that making a connection between "the void"
and "God, the Father" might be a bit of a trick, making a connection between
Quality and DQ is not so tough. And these are just four of a thousand.
Thanks,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 03 2004 - 12:00:01 BST