[MD] QRE: The 4th. level's two interpretations. Par

[MarshaV]

Hello Andre,

What is 'manic'?  It's an analogy built in a conventional world.  It's a
shaming word, no matter how dressed in artistic or scientific garb.  It's a
judgment meant for control.  And what of a gun?  What conclusion must I jump
to?  None!  Society protecting itself, or the shaman/artist seeking
protection? 

I like what you said about remaining watchful. Yes, that is good advice.  

I still think Bo is correct in thinking that intellectual patterns are
subject/object oriented.  Intellect: mind divided against itself.  But once
recognized it is time to move beyond?  Yes, I like that word beyond.  Going
beyond...  Unless you want to get others to see.  I admire Bo.  

Very interesting post, Andre.


Marsha
 
 
 





-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Andre Broersen
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 6:08 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] QRE: The 4th. level's two interpretations. Par

7 Nov. Marsha wrote:

This is from Zilioli's book and is interesting: "Before Plato, no
epistemological distinction had ever been drawn between perception
and perceptual judgement; 'aisthesis' was the general term used by
Presocratic philosophers to indicate 'sense perceptions', 'feelings'
and 'thoughts' (with no clear differentiation, either terminological
or conceptual, between the three terms).  (Zilioli, p.61)

And Bodvar responded:
This is a bit difficult to align with ZAMM directly, but the likeness is
clear,..

Andre:
For what it is worth, this is very easy to align... providing you understand
the difference of abstaction between ZMM and Lila. ZMM is 'dynamic' insight.
It is direct perception and the whole of the book is us, the reader,
following Phaedrus' path, through the intermediary (the narrator...his'for
want of a better word 'alter ego' [ a mind divided against itself] ZMM p325)
reaching this point... i.e.Quality.

I will get to the 'divided mind'part below.

Imho if one continues the ZMM path one should go to the mountains or stay
indoors and just follow DQ. This will end you up you know where!

Lila is about DQ ( the first 9 chapters) and Chapter 10 is the setting out
of the MoQ...as Pirsig says at the end of Chapter 9 '...Phaedrus's central
attention turned away from any further explanation of Dynamic Quality and
turned toward the static patterns themselves'(Lila, p 125). He will be
talking about those things abstracted from, extrapolated fron, chisseled out
from DQ.
These intellectual PoV's ( built up from inorganic/organic/social PoV's) are
what is the MoQ.

You know all this as good as the back of your hand Bodvar. Nothing new...but
remain looking, remain watching, remain sensitive to changes, remain aware
of meanings and changing functions.

A mind divided against itself. There is the dynamic view (the Buddha
everywhere...all is illusion because subject to change) and the static, in
Nagarjuna's view, the 'conventional, everyday world of experience. The world
within which we live everyday of the moon.

I think it will help if you clearly separate these two points of view...but
of course you know this already.

You reduce everything from the intellectual level's point of view to
subjects and objects.

Is the baby born with this distinction? In nothing of Pirsig's writings do I
detect such a notion. Do we learn such a distinction? Yes!! Because it is
very useful. (it is biologically and socially very useful)

Are we forever subjugated and condemned by this distinction? NO!
Is intellect (i.e in your words the s/o aggregate) the determining
influential factor from a MoQ point of view? NO! If that were true the MoQ
would not have come to fruition.

And whilst I am on this, I do not for a moment believe that Phaedrus was
locked up solely because of his (Quality) views. He was locked up because he
was manic and he carried a gun!!. Do you know what lethal combination that
is? Of course 'society' had to do something.

Many patterns of intellectual value have evolved. If not, then no one would
have been able to write ZMM and Lila, and no one in the past would have been
able to even hint at it.

It is the tension between DQ and static patterns of value ( not only
intellectual PoV's), present for many, many years responsible for the
evolutionary (and revolutionary) aspects of the MoQ.

Imho, reducing every intellectual PoV,or (what's the difference:
interpretation) as you appear to be doing Bodvar, to once again pointing or
not agreeing with your SOL (and therefore rejecting it), and reducing
everything to that interpretation, not only obstructs newcomers (and I count
myself among these still) to getting some sort of 'Pirsigian'understanding
of the MoQ but it also stiffles progress. This is a pity.

With all due respect.
Andre
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/