[MD] Is it serious?

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Marsha -

I hope you enjoyed your weekend at the beach.  (I don't know where you 
vacation, but I hear that the weather was great at the Jersey shore.)

Krimel "stepped in" for you in the meantime, informing me that you have been 
"far too charitable" to me, considering my Hamish language and "blue pill 
thinking" (whatever that means).  He seems to find my posts "a rich source 
of humor".

When we left off, you were contesting my observation that the Pirsigians are 
"not content to accept existence for what it is -- a self/other duality." 
You evidently thought I meant accepting certain precepts about physical 
reality (e.g., a flat world) as scientifically true.

> Let me change the language a bit.  Was the world flat when
> human beings experienced it (accepted existence for what it is)
> as flat?

It is true that human beings experienced the earth as a flat plane (within 
their field of vision),  They also experienced the sun rising and setting at 
the earth's horizon, as if circling the earth.  But experience can be 
deceptive, and their conclusions were proved to be wrong by the evidence 
available to Science.

On the other hand, the relation of my awareness to the objects of my 
experience is self-evident to me.  There are no empirical measurements or 
data whereby Science can disprove this self/other duality.

> No Ham, I experience the conventional world conceptually
> as my thinking self, not separate from it.

No, Marsha.  You experience the objective world as an other to you.  Because 
you have been persuaded that your reality is the world, that they are not 
separate, you've allowed your intellect to contradict your experience.  The 
question you have to ask yourself is: Which of these constructs is "true" 
and which is the illusion?

Descartes concluded: "I think, therefore I exist."  Marsha concludes: The 
world exists, therefore I do not".

[Ham, previously]:
> Static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality" is 
> incomprehensible language to me.

[Marsha]:
> For me, it is the best statement of Conventional Reality I
> have ever heard.   Goodness!

The best statement of reality you've ever heard?  According to the author, 
Quality = Value.  If that's true, the meaning of this quotation is 
essentially: Quality responds to Quality.

> Language is analogy.  Surprising isn't it, how much we can
> use this shared language and NOT agree with each other.  -  EGO is not a 
> little pattern; the ego is the mistaken belief
> that a controlling self that can own or disown its patterns.  -  If I am 
> experiencing the world fully what would be the need
> of becoming?  Becoming what?  Tarzan?  The King of the
> World?  If I am experiencing the world fully there is no interval for 
> becoming, no ego.

Ego is not a "belief"; it's the psychologist's term for self-esteem or the 
need to be esteemed by others.  I don't know where you're going with your 
remarks about "experiencing the world fully" and "the need of becoming". 
Does anyone experience the world fully?  By "world" do you mean "reality". 
As someone recently told me, "I have trouble following your unique 
metaphysical language."

The remainder of your post is taken up lauding Pirsig for his "tremendous" 
achievement in bringing East and West together.  This may be your 
"experience", but it certainly isn't mine.  And since the only justification 
you can come up with for denying the self is your "static patterns" mantra, 
it's obvious that you want to deny what is self-evident.  Why should I wish 
to destroy your euphoria?

I will say you've provided disturbing evidence that once indoctrinated to 
the MoQ, there appears to be no turning back.

Enjoy your stay in Qualityland,
Ham