[MD] Some historical perspective

[skutvik at online.no]

Marksmit

You wrote

> Hi Bo, Thanks for spending the time providing your opinion concerning
> Quality.  I do read your posts.  My posts to you were designed, perhaps
> wrongly, to wake you up from your slumber of question-less idolatry. If
> I have discouraged you with this type of post, please forgive me.  I
> encourage you to think for yourself. 

Good word Mark, I wasn't offended by your last post, but am a bit 
busy and don't want to rush my responses that usually results in 
misunderstandings and mistakes.

> I have been thinking about Quality as posed by Pirsig since 1973,
> before you were born.  All is written in ZAMM.  The philosophical
> discourse thereafter is illumination for those that didn't get it. 

Before I was born? A septuagenarian! But I agree with "all is written in 
ZAMM" had only Pirsig transferred ZAMM's master-insight that 
SOM=intellect and then - in LILA - "translated" what the Aretê (that he 
saw overrun by SOM) corresponds to in the MOQ .... if so how much 
bickerings we would have saved ourselves. We may return to these 
salient points in ZAMM.      

> Please remember that the system which Pirsig has put together is a
> representation of his insight.  It can be represented in a number of
> ways which do not include the levels presented, and still impart the
> same message. Even Pirsig would say (and he has) that his description
> simply takes away from Quality because it encapsulates it (it has to).

Well, insights aren't much until conveyed by language, so some 
"system" is required, and I personally find the MOQ very clear had it 
not been for that pesky 4th. level that has haunted it from day one. 
The "kick" I got from ZAMM was that he had the SOM (mind/matter 
as I knew its as then) monster by its throat (by its being the 
"intellectual" fall-out from Quality) but then in LILA, the intellectual 
level had become something very vague, mind-like. The very mind 
that the MOQ rejects by rejecting the mind/matter-metaphysics.

> It is very easy to mistake the levels and hierarchies, and
> philosophical history tied in, for the real thing.  I would caution you
> against that, because you will not find it simply in the words and
> symbols.  Holding on to these things will only retard your education. 
> One must look beyond the dogma. 

It's sweet of you to believe me a youngster (if it wasn't sarcasm) but 
listen "young man": SOM is the source of all S/Os and the "real 
thing/words and symbols" dichotomy is one big specimen. I'll show 
you: The Western world is intellect-SOM steeped and Christendom 
has adopted the S/O in the "Dogma/God reality" form, where 
dogma=mere words that symbolizes some God-reality beyond. While 
Jewdom and Islam (pre-intellect, non-S/O social level patterns) don't 
have any dogmas, the Koran and Tora are God's direct words.   

> I had previously asked for an example of completely abstract concepts. 
> I did this to make you think.  Your response, that this is impossible,
> is simply a disservice to yourself.  

I have to smile of this: An example of completely abstract concepts? 
Concepts, ideas, are abstract by default, but if you by "completely 
abstract" mean that language (abstract) can refer to another abstract 
(convey an idea) and the latter being even more (completely) abstract 
... OK.   

> Of course by definition, that which cannot be defined is undefinable in
> words.  This is why so many great teachings are in the form of
> conversations or stories.  Buddha's sutras are in the conversational
> form. 

Well, I see no great difference in conversations, stories - even - 
koans and straight-forward philosophy. Language is employed 
nevertheless.  

> I read many dogmatic statements in your posts which contain little
> depth.  Try explaining Quality in a different way which does not need
> to resort to levels, you will be surprised what you come up with. 

I get my kicks out of the MOQ - levels an all - had only you folks 
understood its taking leave of the SOM, i.e. is the meta level beyond 
SOM-intellect that contains the whole Q-system. All this about the 
MOQ being a secondary, subjective, conceptual, static rendering of 
some QUALITY beyond MOQ's DQ is clean-cut SOM. If you promise 
to see the hilarious in this ....In a sense a moqist is more like the 
Muslim than the Christian in the respect of regarding the MOQ = 
Quality.     

Keep thinking

Bodvar





> 
> On Oct 30, 2009, at 2:28:36 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
> From:   skutvik at online.no
> Subject:    Re: [MD] Some historical perspective
> Date:   October 30, 2009 2:28:36 AM PDT
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Marksmit
> 
> 29 Oct. :
> 
> Bo before:
> > > I would of course wanted a more radical formulation "Intellect
> > > occurred  when language's words became abstract symbols symbolizing
> > > some  non-symbolic reality. Yours sounds as if there was an
> > > "intellect" in  beforehand that "began the process" (there was an
> > > intelligence) You see how Pirsig's own definition of the 4th. level
> > > (in the Turner letter)
> 
> "The skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no  
> corresponding particular experience and which behave  
> according to rules of their own." 
> 
> > > No that's impossible because the term "symbol" indicates the said
> > > dualism, as does "subject", "mind" ...etc. why I call them aggregates,
> > >  you can't have one without the other. 
> 
> 
> markhsmit:
> > What the heck are you talking about Bo, are you completely
> > insane?  You quote something from Pirsig and then say that
> > it is impossible to talk about? 
> 
> I spent so much time on you because you showed a true interest in the MOQ,
> but it isn't every day that one reality is replaced by another and the
> SOM-MOQ transition can't be done "before breakfast" 
> 
> >  What was Pirsig doing barking?  Get your wits about you man.  I know
> > exactly what Pirsig is saying, but I think he is mistaken. I was asking
> > for examples to see if I was wrong. 
> 
> I'm hard pressed and may have misunderstood so if you (too) regard 
> the above Pirsig definition as wrong .... fine 
> 
> Intellect occurred as what ZAMM describes as SOM. Read that! 
> 
> Bodvar 
> 
> 
> 
>