[MD] in defence of the "relative"

[Joseph Maurer]

On 11/29/09 2:16 PM, "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday 29 November 2009 Matt writes:

Hi Joe,
 
I think the below is an interesting interpretation of the
passage, and Pirsig's philosophy generally, but it doesn't
seem to me to scan with the passage in particular. I think
you would have a very hard time telling people that that's
what Pirsig meant in the hot stove section.
 
Matt
 
Hi Matt and all,

On Sunday 29 November 2009 12:54 pm mark_maxwell wrote:

I infer the existence of my computer screen from visual stimulus, but the
VDU i assume to be there isn't the VDU itself. By analogy, we experience
emotional states that may correspond in some sense to DQ/quality, but the
emotions are not DQ/q itself.

Mark
 
Cutting and pasting through philosophy is forbidden unless you have to.

The closeness of these two responses on differing topics for me highlights
the difficulty of appreciating undefined DQ.  For myself I accept an
Emotional level (Social Level) between the Organic and Intellectual levels
as the awareness in DQ.  Further evolution from the dynamic Emotional
(Social) level to an Intellectual level was required for SQ, for creating
the possibility  for the SQ definition of DQ SOL. Higher Emotional and
Higher Intellectual levels of DQ only complete the picture for the schema
for evolution as proposed in esoteric literature.  Awareness of the
undefined levels are not limited but only those  heroes like Pirsig who have
somehow disciplined themselves to become aware in consciousness only of
further levels of reality seem to apprehend their Quality.

Joe   

> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> I think the below is an interesting interpretation of the
> passage, and Pirsig's philosophy generally, but it doesn't
> seem to me to scan with the passage in particular.  I think
> you would have a very hard time telling people that that's
> what Pirsig meant in the hot stove section.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
>> On 11/23/09 6:42 PM, "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> If everything is
>> experience, what could it possibly mean for something to be
>> "more empirical"?  How can we drive a metaphysical wedge
>> between the experience of low quality associated with the
>> hot stove and the hot stove itself (a distinction you need in
>> order to say the former is "more empirical") when the "hot
>> stove itself" is nothing more or less than a set of static
>> patterns of quality, meaning that "the experience of low
>> quality" is not _associated_ with the stove, but rather _is
>> the stove itself_.  Right?
>> <snip>
>> 
>> Hi Matt and Ron,
>> 
>> Pirsig subtitles Lila with ³An Inquiry into Morals².  My take on that
>> subtitle is that he expects a discussion to follow evolution as a foundation
>> for morality.  In an evolutionary setting I expect ³more empirical² would
>> mean a more intense awareness of the differing levels of evolution.  The hot
>> stove and the experience of sitting on a hot stove relate to differing
>> evolutionary levels, steel and flesh.
>> 
>> An individual can participate in all of the evolutionary levels
>> unconsciously, since his attention at any moment is from only one level.  I
>> think all he was trying to say was that sitting on a hot stove will wake you
>> up by the shock.
>> 
>> The difficulty of participating simultaneously in all of the levels of
>> evolution, is that my awareness falls asleep to other levels.  ³The hot
>> stove² is a shock to wake me up to differing levels, created during the
>> lapse in the awareness of the danger of sitting on a hot stove.
>> 
>> Joe
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
> 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/