[MD] Primer

[gav]

hey mark,


>  
> Mark 7-6-06:
> Hello Gav.
>  
> Gav:
> i am a mystic.
>  
> Mark 7-6-06:
> “There is the Quality of Zen and there is the
> Quality of the MOQ and they  
> are not the same thing anymore because the MOQ is an
> intellectual static pattern 
>  and already it’s been polluted plenty to get into
> that pattern. All of a 
> sudden  you’re taking sides. You’re picking and
> choosing and in Zen you’re not 
> supposed  to do that. I’ll give you that koan:
> ‘the way is not difficult but 
> it avoids  picking and choosing.’ That’s a
> famous koan and the quality that is 
> Quality is  arrived at not by picking and
> choosing.” (Robert Pirsig. AHP 
> conference  1993)
> If you're going to write a Primer then you're going
> to have to pick and  
> choose Gav.

even ZAMM was picking and choosing mark.
some analogies are better than others: choose them,
first. next best second...etc. that was the idea
anyway.

> 
> Gav:
> that is why the code of art trumps the other codes,
> because the  DQ/sq level 
> is more... ...moral...
>  
> 
> Mark 7-6-06:
> I think the MoQ says sq patterns which are more
> Dyanmic are more moral, and  
> art is closer to DQ than rigid patterns.
> Why not talk of Art and Aesthetics instead of
> mysticism then?
> At least Art is a creative activity everyone can
> relate to, but talk of  
> mysticism is divisive and elitist.
> People can be more or less creative but not more or
> less mystic so it  seems?

so the DQ/sq split is sufficient in establishing the
primacy of experience? perhaps you are right.
 it seems to me that starting with DQ/sq begs the
question about what 'q' is. i thought the primary
level would  deal with that in a 'showing' rather than
'saying' manner. 

>  
> Gav: '<some> ...representations of Quality... ...are
> more  correct or 
> accurate, mystically speaking, than others.'

mark:
> I think what you are saying here is, 'Intellectual
> representations of  
> Quality are aesthetic.'
> You see, i avoid any mention of mysticism by talking
> instead about Art and  
> the Aesthetic.
> I've been doing this ever since i joined the MD (and
> MF) but no-one has  
> followed me.
> Zen and the ART of motorcycle maintenance!

yeah some analogies are better than others. but in a
strictly metaphysical sense the more divisions the
more static and the less dynamic or 'real' it is. more
divisions = less verisimilitude.
>  
> Gav:
> it seems good to me - vital actually -  to reinforce
> the  primacy of the 
> experiential over the intellectual.
>  
> > 
> Gav:
> a lot of our probs stem from the fact that we  are
> putting analytic stuff at the top: dividing stuff up
> FIRST, instead of  SECOND.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Mark 7-6-06:
> If all people did was talk about DQ and sq all the
> time i would be as happy  
> as the day is long.
> How about you?
> The fact that people hardly ever do is problematic
> IMHO. If people talk  
> about DQ they may appreciate the relationship
> between it and  art.
>


i agree with you on the importance and universality of
the Dq/sq analogy, especially when DQ is equated with
creative, pre-intellectual experience.

what about the static levels? are they best used in
conjunction with the DQ/sq picture, or as a separate
level? what is your feeling here?

  
>  
> >  
> Mark 7-6-06:
> If you're telling me i need a Primer after 14 years
> of thinking about the  
> MoQ i may as well go fishing.
> The problem with that is, i now know fishing is an
> art form aiming at  DQ.
> Maybe that's our Primer right there: Go fish and
> become a better  person.

okay if you're not a fish.
no i think YOU should help create a primer, or are you
more into hording your superior metaphysical
understanding? only half-kidding. if you think this
stuff is important, which obviously you do, then i am
saying that a primer is a good idea, better than
spending hours on individual difficult parochial
discussions.
 maybe i am just in too much of a rush!!!!

  
> Gav:
> huge disagreements twixt me and platt and mark on
> simple basics. if we get  
> agreement on the basics then, theoretically, should
> have a lot less trouble 
> from  what is extrapolated from them later on.
>  
>  
> Mark 7-6-06:
> There are no disagreements huge or otherwise about
> basics simple or  
> otherwise Gav.
> The trouble starts when people begin talking,
> 'about' Quality.
> Lila was written to explain different static
> histories: You, Platt and i  
> have different static histories.
> But you, Platt and i agree that Quality is primary.

yeah. maybe i am barking up the wrong tree. think i
might go fishing after all.

cheers
gav
> 
>  
> Love,
>  
> Mark
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/



		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
Music: Create your own personalised radio station. 
http://au.launch.yahoo.com/