[MD] Crazy talk

[Heather Perella]

This is what I mentioned to Laird, Micheal, which is,
have you also, Micheal read the Dogen Part 1 post I
sent?  It shows how Zen is able to use S/O to explain
itself (Zen).  Thus, the MoQ is changing the language
of SOM to rid the old baggage/presumptions that come
with strict SOM master talk.  Zen has difficulty with
SOM in trying to get rid of all of the usual trappings
SOM encourages, but Zen is able to work with SOM and
put a Zen twist upon it that changes SOM's trappings. 
MoQ also changes SOM's trappings, and MoQ goes
further.  MoQ also changes SOM's
language/paradigm/culture thereby avoiding much of the
explaining that has to be done to help one dodge the
trappings inherent in strict SOM.  Thus, Zen can
explain and use SOM.  MoQ can explain and use SOM. 
Yet, MoQ is a short-cut.  Zen is a short-cut.  And
here's another one.  As long as SOM master talk
exists, MoQ and Zen will be here to help explain it
better and rid the trappings and short-comings.      


shadows grow long here early,
SA   



> On 1/2/07, Laird said something quite good, which
> seems to have gone unremarked:
> > Thinking that the MoQ is seriously opposed to SOM
> is a very dangerous
> > road. The MoQ encompasses and tames SOM, and to
> some extent relies upon
> > the fruits of SOM to provide strength to its
> argument. SOM provides an
> > awful lot to our intellect and to trash it would
> be a catastrophic loss.
> > An MoQ directly opposed to SOM would be
> anti-rational, anti-logical,
> > self-destructive and doomed from the get-go. SOM
> just has a big ego and
> > the MoQ knocks it down a peg or two. :)
> 
> Damn straight! In the initial rush of excitement
> after reading Pirsig,
> I had a tendency to get big-headed, thinking I'd
> been let in on the
> true reality and that from here on in I'd be so much
> more enlightened
> all these dolts living in their world of subjects
> and objects. As
> Laird says: dangerous road.
> 
> Throwing out subjects and objects is crazy talk, and
> not very useful.
> It's tied up my brains a fair few times. The great
> thing about the MOQ
> is that it doesn't _start_ with subjects and objects
> - it starts with
> experience. So in a way, MOQ _is_ opposed to SOM,
> i.e. a metaphysics
> which starts with subjects and objects. But the MOQ
> doesn't ban us
> from talking about or thinking about subjects and
> objects.
> 
> The MOQ is a philosophy for life, rather than a
> philosophy for knifed,
> dissected, dead matter. That's something I'd been
> looking for before
> picking up ZMM. The danger that I succumbed to after
> reading Pirsig
> was deluding myself that it's always wrong to think
> in terms of
> subjects and objects. It's a delusion every bit as
> guilt-inducing as
> believing in Original Sin.
> 
> The subject/object distinction is a poor
> metaphysical master. But
> let's not forget that it can be an excellent
> servant.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 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/
> 

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