[MD] Back in SOM

[skutvik at online.no]

Greetings to you Marsha

15 March:

I had written:
> >The intellectual level will take the shape of S/O aggregate  anywhere
> >and everywhere. The alleged non-S/O intellect that the Upanishads
> >philosophy spells in the Oriental Culture was also a  search for
> >truths beyond the Veda mythology, but it never developed the way it
> >did in the West to become a static level, before they moved on to
> >some Quality-like stage. Why there is some likeness, and why Pirsig
> >spotted it, but he should have dropped it, now the Zen is a drag.
 
> What does 'now the Zen is a drag.' mean?  How is Zen a drag?
> Of course your opinion is good for you, but I find the Wisdom, both
> logic and the compassion, within Buddhism very meaningful.  It has
> enhanced my understanding of the MOQ.

Zen is a drag due to the infamous pre-concept/conceptual 
"metaphysics" the latter-day Pirsig has superimposed on the  
MOQ. This was not part of his original insight which was pre-
intellect/intellect (intellect=S/O). About something ahead of 
subjects and objects being pre-conceptual was William James' 
idea and something DMB had peddled ever since he began his 
acadmical career. 

Marsha listen: If concepts (language-conveyed ideas)  are 
regarded as secondary to a real world out there we subscribe to 
SOM's "objective over subjective" party. The MOQ is a total break 
with SOM and has relegated it the role of its own intellectual level 
and consequently the "pre-concept/concept" has become a static 
intellectual pattern. Language and/or language-conveyed ideas 
don't play any  particular role except as a social tool that intellect 
inherited.

The Buddhist compassion is great, but when it tries to make it 
across to the S/O-steeped Western World it has to apply it's (the 
West's) "intellectual" S/O matrix and creates metaphors like the 
moon-finger.

Bo