[MD] dharma, the way, zazen, path, the morning fog, etc...

[Heather Perella]

Hello Kevin,

     Kevin said:  "It’s a fine point but I would make
a distinction between experience and knowledge.  In
the above example two people saw the same thing but
experienced it differently.  Because the beer can
didn’t mean the same thing to both of them the
knowledge they took from it was different.  In this
sense, beer can as shim stock was not part of
Sutherland’s reality."

     Thus, reality is malleable?  Yet, our static
values hold reality in place, and that's how we have
groups of people organized and believing in similar
qualities of life.  And we have static values that
differ where individuals, Pirsig's culture of one,
come into play.

     Kevin said:  "I would add that DQ is meaningless
apart from some SQ framework."

     Yes, I think considering DQ too much, takes away
from any foothold onto a solid reality known as static
quality.

     SA said:  "Mysticism is DQ."

     Kevin said:  "I disagree.  Mysticism and mystical
experiences, because they have meaning, are within
some SQ framework.  Again, DQ apart from some SQ
framework is meaningless.  At least this is how I
understand the Metaphysics of Quality."

     What is mysticism?  I understand you are saying
it has some SQ framework, but I include this in the
intellectual, which I don't think necessary means mind
alone.  Zen or Buddha, which Pirsig refers to often,
are understandings that rid any individual categories
that are separate from each other.  We can point to
individual categories, but they are not totally
separated from each other.  If, you THINK or have in
MIND a SQ framework about mysticism, then you do on
the intellectual level.

     Kevin said:  "I make a distinction between mind
and heart.  As I said, I see science and philosophy,
because of their insistence on logical reasoning, in
the realm of the mind.  And I see art and religion in
the realm of the heart.  It's these distinctions that
are the basis for my saying that the Metaphysics of
Quality appears to be incomplete."

     I thought your definition of intellect joins
heart and mind together as one.  Your definition is
from Pirsig as follows:

     "The first step down from Phædrus' statement that
"Quality is the Buddha" is a statement that such an
assertion, if true, provides a rational basis for a
unification of three areas of human experience which
are now disunified.  These three areas are Religion,
Art and Science.  If it can be shown that Quality is
the central term of all three, and that this Quality
is not of many kinds but of one kind only, then it
follows that the three disunified areas have a basis
for introconversion."

     Why are you saying heart and mind are separate
when you said earlier they are not separate, and I
quote you from above, "...if true, provides a rational
basis for a unification of three areas of human
experience which are now disunified."  From what I
understand the "if true" leaves the middle way open. 
What I mean by this is it is up to you, me, and
everybody else to decide if an experience on this
earth is better if we think heart and mind is separate
or we could think heart and mind are together.  We
could think either way and decide for ourselves which
one has the better quality of life.  I go for the
oneness of life.  Personally I believe G-d and I are
one.  I use G-d as a term that explains for me where
everything or how everything came to be, because I
know that I did not put trees here or make my wife.  I
point at something else, another factor comes into
play for me that did all of this.  Many names are
given, and I believe DQ is another name for the
creative quality of this universe.  Some others call
this unexplainable aspect of life the Great Spirit. 
For me, it is better to understand the meaning and
have an understanding to what this unexplainable
'DQ'/Great Spirit (Many Amerindians)/Great Mystery
(Plains Amerindians)/G-d/Jehovah/Allah/the Great Bear
(I don't know I made this last one up)... to have
understanding what these I have just mentioned are
inclined to do as mentioned and comprehended via SQ. 
{I am well aware that some of those Amerindians names
are English words and therefore to learn more about
what these cultures believe or how they define their
DQ would be even more helpful on my part.  I have
researched quite a bit of these cultures
understandings and have been a student of their
religions for some years and the Great Mystery is one
term that I have heard some of the Amerindians
themselves use to describe the Creator.]
     What do I mean in 'inclined to do, mean, and be
understood as' well, for instance, what does Jehovah
mean or G-d mean?  When I try to give meaning and
describe these, they are in much of the same line of
thinking used to give meaning and describe Quality. 
Descriptive words are possible, but giving a definite
meaning that is not endless in its' understanding or
meaning or actions would mimic Quality, especially due
to the DQ aspect of Quality.  Yet, just as Quality
could be described and meaning given and even its'
actions we have the SQ side to these endless
understandings.
     Notice how this all jumbles together for me when
the Buddha reality is used, the Zen reality is used,
the Christ reality is used, why is this so?  I think
it is due to their universality of meanings and
understandings in what they are trying to describe
just expressed using different words because everybody
around the world has different languages due to
geographically distribution, etc...  
     An understanding that goes into the 'oneness' or
'universality' will be talking the dharma (universal
teaching).  If their is enough wisdom in how any one
people understand this 'oneness' that exists, then
their knowledge will be in step with their actions. 
Yet, any one people (a society) needs to have enough
wisdom to see the actions take place in their
community.  The more any society diverges from the
'oneness' the more separate their knowledge and
actions will be.  Their knowledge and actions will get
so far from each other that soon they could be doing
something and not even know what they are doing, or
they could know about something but not know enough to
actually put into action what they know - these two
are separations of knowledge and action, which if they
(knowledge and action) were together on course with
the 'oneness' then we would notice wisdom.  This
'course' is a path, a way that any one person or
society could walk upon or experience.   

Thanks Kevin, I am enjoying the quality time we are
taking in order to discover or rediscover something
about this life on earth that is both meaningful and
valuable to me.


SA 

P.S. I understand that there are some aetheist in the
MOQ.org, and those that understand me, know that I am
not trying to tread upon or disrupt your way of life. 
Thanks.
   

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com