[MD] sideways drifting

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Gene M" <boredandunstable at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] sideways drifting
>Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 15:28:50 -0400
>
>Dan wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, it seems to me that there is generally an unspoken assumption in
> > Western science that there really is a reality "out there" waiting to be
> > discovered while Eastern science has a generally unspoken assumption 
>that
> > there really is a reality "in here" waiting to be discovered. These
> > "conventional truths" often seem to conflict. The MOQ seems to say that
> > these conventional truths are both high quality ideas, nothing more.
> >
>
>
>One of the things I took away after re-reading ZMM recently was that the
>conflict between those two truths is mere SOM illusion. As Quality shapes
>the objects, it also shapes the subject. Hence the more we understand an
>object outside ourselves, the more we understand ourselves. There is no
>conflict, because the ideas are identical.

I'm not sure I'd say that the ideas are identical except to say they are 
ideas, the point being that some ideas have higher value than others 
according to who is doing the valuing. We all suffer from a cultural 
blindspot in that we've learned how to view the world within the culture we 
belong - take the "Cleveland harbor" effect Robert Pirsig describes in LILA. 
We're so convinced that we know all about the world that we miss all the 
little signs pointing out that we don't have even the slightest notion.

I would say that the MOQ is as much illusion as the SOM, only the MOQ allows 
for a more expanded point of view. Both the MOQ and SOM are ideas but they 
are not identical. A Western scientist might never question whether the 
reality being studied is really there or not, and the same could perhaps be 
said of a Eastern monk. That's where the MOQ comes in with its 
conflict-erasing preconization. Would you agree?

Thank you for your comments,

Dan