[MD] Another parallel

[Dan Glover]

"While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on 
Buddhism recently out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen 
and published by Turtle. I recommend you get it because it shows the 
similarities, between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other I 
have seen."
 
Pirsig to McWatt, May 6th 1998.


----------------------------------------
> From: valkyr at att.net
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:40:50 -0400
> Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel
>
> 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
>
>
> 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/
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Search, add, and share the web’s latest sports videos. Check it out.
http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports