[MD] Another parallel

[MarshaV]

Greetings Dan,

I know Mr. Pirsig recommends the book,'Buddhism Plain and Simple', but
where?  I've been looking for what he wrote, but haven't found it.  It's a
great book.  I've both read it and have it on my iPod for listening; Steve
Hagen reads it himself and he has the most wonderful Minnesota accent.  I'm
curious to read again RMP's recommendation.
 
 
Marsha
  
 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Dan Glover
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 11:59 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel




Hello everyone

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:16:38 -0700
> From: ridgecoyote at gmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel
>
> Dan,
> I guess I'm ready to respond to this now. I've been thinking a lot through
> since you wrote it...
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi John
>>
>> In Steve Hagen's book Buddhism Plain and Simple he offers a picture of
>> "something" and instructs the reader to keep looking at the picture until
>> they "see" what it is. His point: you cannot use reason; either you see
it
>> or you don't. And once you see it, there is no doubt about it. You "know"
>> beyond a shadow of reason what it is you're looking at.
>
>
>John:
> My own pre-intellectualization plays with this differently. We humans
> possess two differing intellection processes - eyes and ears- and they
> correspond to two basic conceptualization systems- images and words.
>
> With images, we associate reality and with words we associate and analyze
> truth. Both make up our humanity. Both realms are fairly distinct.
> Reason is of the realm of the word, and thus hasn't much to do with images
> in my game.
 
Hi John
 
It appears to me that words are images too. They convey a symbolic reality
steeped in imagery. Recall if you will not long ago when we told each other
stories about reading aloud: the subtle inflections to realize emotion-laden
expressions, the character-acting, the pregnant pause... all these lend a
realism to a book that reading to oneself doesn't always allow. I fail to
see any clearly defined demarcation between images and words. They're bound
up together too tightly to tease apart in any such way.

>
>
>Dan:
>> I think that is analogous to what Robert Pirsig is saying. When we're
>> confronted with raw unfiltered direct experience we tend to rationalize
it
>> away.
>
>John:
> Sometimes Robert Pirsig sounds like a guy who just hates to be wrong so
> much, that he turns his intellect against the fallibility of his own
> intellect. 
 
Dan:
I'm sorry but he doesn't strike me as that kind of guy at all. 
 
John:
We're supposed to rationalize raw unfiltered direct experience
> away. That's the fun of it, making dynamic choice instead of just letting
> the cosmos have its way with us and pour any old input into our
> receptacles.
 
Dan:
Who says we're supposed to rationalize experience away? I'm sure most adults
to just that, mind you. But who made that rule? Where's the magic in a world
like that? No surprises, no miracles, no amazement... just dull reason on
top of reason on top of reason... kind of like reading Kant. Sounds like
fun. Yeah. I can't wait...

>Dan:
> Reason is a static defense mechanism that becomes our central reality. The
>> central reality of the MOQ, though, is not reason.
>>
>John:
> So you think we're pursuing an unreasonable metaphysic? 
 
Dan:
Well, yes. I do. I'm pretty sure Robert Pirsig says as much in LILA.
 
John:
I am starting to
> wonder. What if I claim rather for myself that reason is my dynamic
> intellectual defense mechanism that I use to understand my central
reality?
 
Dan:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying you define the
undefinable? If so, then I agree.
 
John:
> My central reality is beyond reason, of course, or I would be the owner of
> a static intellect. Which I think the technical definition of a completely
> static intellect is "dead".
 
Dan:
So... I take it that you're agreeing with the Robert Pirsig quote, then?
 
Thank you for your reply,
 
Dan