[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[MarshaV]

At 04:25 PM 12/12/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha,
>
>More follow up. See below
>
> > At 01:25 PM 12/12/2008, you wrote:
> > >Hi Marsha,
> > >
> > > > At 10:37 AM 12/12/2008, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >[Ron]
> > > > > > I would say that a "true" MoQ teacher does not "teach" but
> > provides
> > > > the
> > > > > > climet and the atmosphere
> > > > > > for the individual to realize itself.
> > > > >
> > > > >Yes -- another reason for thinking of the intellectual level as the
> > > > >"individual" level, the current high point of moral evolution,
> > laying
> > > > the
> > > > >groundwork for the advance to the next level of art.
> > > >
> > > > Greetings Platt,
> > > >
> > > > How would this quote fit into your intellectual-level-as-individual
> > > > point-of-view?
> > > >
> > > > "While sustaining biological and social patterns
> > > > Kill all intellectual patterns.
> > > > Kill them completely
> > > > And then follow Dynamic Quality
> > > > And morality will be served."
> > > >      (LILA, Chapter 32)
> > >
> > >This reflects what Pirsig said near the beginning of LIla -- that writing
> > a
> > >metaphysics is a degenerate activity. But he went on to say that not
> > >writing a metaphysics was just as degenerate as writing one. "Purity,
> > >identified, ceases to be purity." So while we acknowledge a mystic
> > reality
> > >of no intellectual patterns and thus no levels (as in the passage you
> > >quote) we have to "settle for being something less pure." My individual
> > >level point-of-view, like the MOQ itself, is being less pure.
> >
> > Platt,
> >
> > What about Annotation 29 in LILA's Child?  Seems to me RMP is stating
> > that the "sefl" does not exist independent of the patterns of all four
> > levels.
> >
> > "29. The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a
> > "self" that is independent of inorganic, biological, social or
> > intellectual patterns. There is no "self" that contains these
> > patterns. These patterns contain the self. This denial agrees
> > with both religious mysticism and scientific knowledge. In
> > Zen, there is reference to "big self" and "small self." Small
> > self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality."
> >      (LILA's Child)
>
>Agree. Individuals consist of the four levels and the individual level,
>like other levels, is dependent on levels below it.
>
>Pirsig refers to the human individual many times in Lila, most notably in
>his long story about the brujo and, of course, Lila herself.
>
>"Scientific knowledge" above probably refers to dedicated materialists who
>believe the notion of "I" or self is a handy hallucination created by
>neurons firing in the brain. "Religious mysticism" probably refers to seers
>who believe the "small self" is a chip off the big block of Buddha, or in
>the Christian religion, a child of God.

Hi Platt,

Maybe, but Buddha isn't an entity.



>That the individual holds a high place in the Pirsig's philosophy is
>evidenced by his writing in ZAMM: "My personal feeling is this is how
>further improvement in the world will be done: by individuals making
>Quality decisions, and that's all."
>
>What do you think?

Without defining precisely what the individual is or isn't, I think 
'Three cheers for Quality decisions!!!'


Marsha





.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.