[MD] Some historical perspective

[markhsmit]

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.

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.

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).  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.

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.  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.

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.

All the best,
Mark

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 








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/