[MD] feelings, emotions and the biological level

[MarshaV]

At 05:36 AM 5/11/2007, you wrote:
>Hello Marsha,
>
> > Are a pointing finger, map, signpost or explanation objective?
>
>Sounds like you're questioning objectivity.
>
>Yes.  To the extent that objectivity has meaning and we can agree on that
>meaning, yes, I'm saying the MoQ either exists objectively as something
>that can be pointed to or it exists subjectively and is whatever a person
>intends it to be.
>
> > By objective, do you mean to some degree static?
>
>Yes.  Static.  Like a resteraunt with a 30,000 page menu but no food.  Or
>like a static intellectual pattern.
>


Greetings Kevin,

Thanks for you patience.

Does the MoQ exist as an object separate from the multiple versions 
of Pirsig's original idea held in the constellations of SPoV that 
represent individuals?   I don't think so.  Even if it were chiseled 
in marble, there would be different interpretations, different 
understandings, different situations.   I think that would be true 
between a multiple of individuals, and within one individual over a 
period of time.  To me, static doesn't mean absolutely rigid.

So how do you experience your emotions?   How do emotions move your 
mind?  It seems to me it's not so much what the MoQ states, as it is 
how emotions vibrate the individual.  Has your understanding of the 
MoQ altered your emotional experience (all, or some)?   If there's 
been a change, has it been for the 'better'?   Are these legitimate 
questions to ask oneself about the MOQ?    Is it a world view, or 
philosophy, that improves the quality of your life?  My answer is 
YES, most definitely yes.

Not sure I've said anything of value.

Marsha