[MD] my question

[John Carl]

whoa, now that's an interesting realization Mary:

[Mary Replies]
> To me, the real question is what does worse mean?  That one is easier for
> everybody to answer.  I wonder why?  A false question but in no way
> designed
> to trip you up, just asking.  I know why.  DQ is unknown and undefinable,
> but SQ is not.  I absolutely know what worse would be.  I'll bet you do
> too.
> Better?  That is in the realm of the yet to be experienced.  But I'm
> looking
> for it.
>
>
John:

I like that Mary.  I like it a lot.  Because betterness is mysterious and
something we seek constantly, while worseness is manifest and we flee what
we know is bad.  But goodness or betterness is hoped for and nebulous,
achieved through through testing hypothetical formulation.

So it's not that SQ is worseness.  Its that all worseness is static!

I think I just got me a realization.




>
> >
> [Mary Replies]
> As we heard and hopefully absorbed, "art is endeavor".  Not 'an' endeavor,
> or endeavor toward a known, specific end point.  Don't remember the old
> saw,
> but the thing is in the journey, not the arrival.  Something like that.
>
>
John:

Yes!  because this place we are in is always midpoint between the worse that
we shun, and the better we seek.  We are always in process.



> > 1)  it seems to me to absolutize the intellectual level, a very narrow
> > way
> > of thinking.
> >
> [Mary Replies]
> What's wrong with that?  Are you attached to the Intellectual Level?  Does
> it need defending?  Expanding?  Don't you want something better than that?
>
>

JOhn:

No you missed my meaning.  I think equating SOM with the intellectual level
is what causes over-attachment to intellectualism.  Which is antithetical to
the spirit and letter of the MoQ.


> > 2)  It diminishes art and higher math's intuitive side - music, and
> > their
> > role in human thought and evolution.
> >
> [Mary Replies]
> Art exists at all levels.  It is not owned by the Intellectual.  In fact,
> the Intellectual devalues most art if "art" is used in the conventional
> sense you may be using.  But Pirsig says art is endeavor.  That says to me
> that art is any endeavor taken on in good faith.  You believe in what you
> are doing.  That is art.  In that sense, science properly done is art.  The
> poor guy in the middle ages who attempted to count all the angels that
> could
> fit on the head of a pin.  He was doing art.  Not because it was beautiful
> or admired, though it may have been at the time or not, but because it was
> a
> noble cause he undertook in a spirit of belief in what he was doing.  Art
> is
> committed endeavor.  A good marriage could be art.
>
>
John:

But just eating and pooping isn't art.  Art is more than social patterning
also. When social patterning becomes art, it has jumped ship (level) and is
now a 4th level pattern.

A good marriage is just a good marriage.  I think a good marriage should be
a springboard for art.

> 3)  It lacks true intellectual rigor - it's an idea unacceptable to
> > some of
> > the best minds on this forum, and imo, the author himself.  Thus its a
> > disharmonizing idea.
> >
> [Mary Replies]
> You must understand the nature of the problem before the solution is
> valuable.  Most of the best minds on this forum could be better still if
> they would choose to take down their defenses.  Humility, abasement.  We
> have replaced belief in God with belief in ourselves, and this is good for
> we are good.  We are children of Quality, but we must realize that we are
> not ultimate Quality.  We are provisional.
>

John:

Hmm.. I don't know Mary, but it sounds like you've been hanging around
evangelicals too long.  You've replaced one pope with another. :-)

>
> > 4)  It seems ridiculous to suddenly cast your story's villain in the
> > role of
> > hero.  The 4th level is the apex of evolutionary development, cannot be
> > SOM,
> > the bug-a-boo ghost of reason thrashed thoroughly in ZAMM.
> >
> [Mary Replies]
> If there were already something better than SOM prior to Pirsig, he would
> not have felt such a need to develop something better.  SOM is wonderful!
> It is powerful, potentially and really helpful, and the way out of the
> Social straightjacket.  It is not ultimate Quality, ultimate Values,
> ultimate Morals.  To transcend the Social, it denies the existence of all
> of
> these.  It has to because the Social corrupted their meaning.  It is better
> than what we had before, but it is not the Best.  There is room for
> improvement and that should give us hope, not despair.
>
> > 5)  I can't think of a single reason, why viewing it Bo's way, would be
> > better or more cohesive.
> >
> [Mary Replies]
> SOM is ego driven.  That is not what you really want.  To satisfy your ego,
> and me to satisfy mine, is to sell ourselves short.  To settle.  The
> intellectual level cannot comprehend transcendence.  Transcendence is
> beyond
> intellect.  If we have it all worked out, why are you here?  What are you
> seeking if the Intellectual encompasses all?  You should be satisfied and
> you should already have peace of mind.
>
>
John:   Well to an extent, I am satisfied and I do have peace of mind.  Why
am I here then?

Because, Mary, being here makes me smile.