[MD] the MOQ and its environment

[MarshaV]

At 03:38 AM 2/18/2007, you wrote:
>Marsha and Ian
>
>16 Feb. Marsha said:
>
> > It seems to me that both "falling to the ground" and Newton's
> > explanation are descriptions.  The MOQ is also a description. Both DQ
> > and sq within the MOQ are descriptions.  But the Quality that is
> > described in the MOQ represents an experience, a value experience, not
> > another description.
>
>I can't see how "quality and experience" escapes the black hole
>of descriptions (why not "language" it's an absolute shock-and
>watertight argument?). Even the "pointing finger" requires
>language.
>
> > Are you wanting to put into the MOQ the sages/buddhas level?  Those
> > who have fully realized the view from above all levels?
>
>Ian said re.the above:
>
>     I (and others) have made that kind of suggestion before,
>     an enlightened level at the top of or above the
>     "traditional" intellectual level. Yes, it may be a static
>     pattern to name it and place it there, but there is nothing
>     says the MoQ can't support that evolving to even higher
>     levels of enlightenment (where we'll have to find new
>     words to describe what we're talking about.)
>
>"The enlightened level"  would be the MOQ itself. It is "out of
>intellect" and it shows a (static) level-like relationship with
>intellect, but simultaneously is what contains it all. Anything less
>will bring the "Gravity argument" back to haunt it, that one is one
>of the many great insights that ZMM contains.
>
>I saw that you - Marsha - made a disclaimer regarding this, but
>you need not have, because it is what catches it best. Either the
>MOQ is a new  reality or sheer nonsense, all effort to make it an
>intellectual pattern is doomed.

Greetings Bo,

Yesterday I spent the day with my favorite guru.  That would be my 
two-and-a-half year-old grandson.  He is certainly dynamic and is 
more intelligent than most adults.

To me, the MOQ belongs in the Intellectual Level, although within 
that level it is on higher ground than SOM.  The MOQ is firmly 
planted in the Intellectual Level, but points to a liberation and 
freedom from the Intellectual Level.

I can't imagine how an Enlightenment Level would be explained.  What 
method of communication would you use, and how would you explain it?

>What transcends the S/O must be D/S (dynamic/static)-divided
>(or vice versa)  and in LILA Pirsig describes how Hinduism has
>reconciled the two. aspects. Hinduism is much older than
>Buddhism and how the two relates is beyond me, but I think the
>MOQ is even better than "orientalism" because of its long S/O-
>intellectual sojourn. Thereby it becomes the long-sought bridge
>between the East and the West. But to fill that role it must not
>revert to "mysticism" as something beyond it.

Ah yes, rta.  It is what it is.  "The physical order of the universe 
is also the moral order of the universe." and "Dharma, like, rta, 
means 'what holds together.'"  I think the reason the MOQ makes an 
excellant bridge between the East and the West is precisely because 
it is rooted in the Intellectual Level but points beyond.

m