[MD] Marsha's (s)OL: the question

[MarkHSmit at aol.com]

Hi John,
Thanks for jumping in, this is a discussion after all.
Sometimes the emotional, the intangible feelings
come in, but that is part and parcel of the nature
of this interchange.

I get your point about a codified system, it is necessary
to stay consistent.   I asked Bo for an explanation of Quality
without the levels to help provide illumination to the abstract
sense under scrutiny.   IMO, if Quality were to analyze itself, it
would not see the levels.   These levels are created by our
interrogation of Quality.   They are created to help us
know Quality.   They represent out experience of what is
present.   We sense Quality coalescing into discrete levels
with jumps into exclusive strata.   This is analogous to the solar
system coalescing into discrete planets.   Those planetary orbits do
not explain the solar system.    I brought up Kierkegaard
in a previous post, since he sees man's contemplative
existence existing in three circles (levels) with jumps that
exclude the previous circle.   But enough about Kierkegaard.

The seemingly most useful way to transfer a sensibility is through
a narrative, a story which has hooks that bring in the listener (reader).
This is why ZAMM had much more influence than Lila.   It is the 
American dream to motorbike off into the West.   The meaning of
the story creeps in with the dialogue.   Lila attempts to do the same
thing, but the analytical is overwhelming (at least to the reader
new to the concept).   Once Pirsig enters into the purely philosophical
metaphysical, the transfer of his concept becomes more difficult.

While levels may be used as a way of describing.   The assumption that
levels really exist replaces Quality with our description.   In this way
it confines it and makes it a false idol, if you will.   This conundrum is
not just for the metaphysical or spiritual, it is also proposed in
physics (quantum mechanics).   As Marsha may appreciate, it is the
act of interrogation or measurement that creates what is measured.
This so called vector collapse proposes that what we see is what
we see.   It doesn't exist before but is created as it happens.   The 
intellect is an associative technique used to provide useful information.
But, I too digress.

So, if we are trying to transfer our sense of Quality to another.
If we are imparting information which is not just an echo of
what others are saying, but a deep seeded understanding,
it may be possible to do so in a way that complements
the illumination through levels; it may be possible to increase
the impact of the MOQ.   To make it more relevant, more
accessible.   As with any codified system, there are holes to
be filled, the mesh of the net needs to be tighter.

Cheers,
Mark

In a message dated 10/27/09 9:36:03 AM, ridgecoyote at gmail.com writes:


> Ok Mark,
> 
> Like you I am here to learn and grow through dialectical exchanges of high
> quality.  So I feel comfortably congruent enough with your own aims and
> goals to just jump in to your exchange with Bo and pick out the things I
> want to comment upon.  M. Scott Peck's greatest #1 rule in communication
> (paraphrased) is "speak when DQ moves you and DON'T speak when DQ 
> doesn't."
> 
> So I dive in as the spirit moves and hope you don't mind.
> 
> 
>   The intellect is
> >
> > indeed limiting, blocking out 99% of experience, but
> > necessary for complex social behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> I think a good analogy for understanding the proper role of intellect is 
> the
> one Pirsig draws with "scientific method".  Its what you crank up and use 
> on
> reality when your really need it or want it.
> 
> 
> Intellect is empowering.  Reliance upon intellect alone is limiting.  It 
> is
> the reliance that is limiting, not the intellect.  The intellect is great!
> Wonderful tool, just like (probably identical with) the scientific method.
> 
> And I agree it is good to use intellect when figuring out complex social
> behavior.  Like the geeky kids (me and my friends)
> sitting on the sidelines at the school dance and analyzing high school
> cliques and power struggles.  But there comes a time when you just gotta
> stop thinking and dance and using intellect exclusively gets in the way of
> that.
> 
> I was talking to my brother last night, who's been going through marital
> trouble with the same woman for the last 25 years, and he says to me, "I
> just wish I could get past all the male-female drama and focus on 
> important
> spiritual issues."
> 
> He said this to me because he was talking about how much he loved Lila, 
> but
> he had never finished it because his wife would seem to go into some kind 
> of
> snit and throw him off track.   I laughed and told him, "Dude!  That's 
> what
> the book is about!  Pirsig started out wanting to make a book about the
> Indians and gets meets some woman on his boat that throws all his
> intellectual plans and schemes and organizations out the window."
> 
> And yet, in the end pulls it all together for the ultimate truth is we 
> never
> get over the woman troubles.
> 
> Well... I have, but that's just me and only cuz I lucked into marrying the
> wonderful Lu...
> 
> sidetrack of my own... back to the intellectual voyage!
> 
> 
> 
> > It is not necessary to create levels as such, since they seem
> > to confuse the situation  This is not to say that
> > the expression of a hierarchical existence does not convey
> > the sensibility (feeling within you) that you are trying to convey.
> > I am looking for an easier expression of Quality and how it
> > manifests.  Is it possible to explain Quality without levels?
> >
> 
> 
> Oh my yes.  In fact, the expression of levels of reality is an example of
> metaphysical speculation based upon the realization of Quality as the
> ultimate foundation of everything.  In other words, It's the best
> explanation we can come up with for what is presented to us, but this 
> 'best'
> is that provisional best which DQ generates in all times and contexts.
> 
> However, I would argue that these categorical demarkations ARE the best
> explanation and thus they ARE part and parcel of the MoQ, which is also a
> codified system.  You gotta have a codified system or you don't have a
> metaphysic.
> 
> Out of the synthesis of different ideas about the MoQ, arise the 
> realization
> of DQ pointing to that which is best about each and thus the MoQ evolves.
> 
> I've cast a lot of disparagement upon a strict hierarchical interpretation
> of the levels, but I would not toss out the 4 levels - I point to them as 
> a
> fundamental proof that "something else" is needed to explain the plain
> evidence of evolution - that reality does indeed climb a ladder of
> statically latched DQ with a higher dynamic to each level and within the
> levels themselves pointing to a morality that is tied to the inherent 
> moral
> structure of the cosmos.
> 
> Let me rephrase my point, it's new enough (to me anyway) to need 
> restating.
> DQ evidently creates a hierarchy of patterned reality in four stages;  a
> hierarchy of patterned reality in four stages does NOT create DQ.  Thus a
> common mistake I see here on this forum of thinking something is better 
> just
> because it's of a higher level dominating a lower.
> 
> This isn't always good.  Good is the best definition of what is good, and
> the levels are ways of intellectualizing the good we experience in the
> moment.
> 
> Whew!
> 
> 
> 
> >  I do rely on
> > simple dialogue with those who seem to have a grasp.
> >
> 
> You and me both, bro.  It's the "seeming" sometimes that can be tricky...
> 
> John the oft unseeming
> 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/
> 
>