RE: MF Re: March 2004 - Metaphysics and the mystical reality.

From: David Buchanan (
Date: Sat Apr 03 2004 - 05:52:38 BST

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "MF Topic proposal Apr 2K4."

    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
    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.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MF Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 03 2004 - 12:00:01 BST