[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[Andre Broersen]

Platt to Andre:
You've explained what you believe to be the difference between today's One
and an improved, harmonious One -- namely that more people need to realize a
richer One through enlightenment. How that is to be achieved, however,
remains a mystery. Only "various means" are suggested. I hope the "varioua
means" doesn't include speeches by professors, priests or politicians to a
captive audience of school children.

Andre:
Sorry Platt, but you are once again showing yourself for what you really
stand for.

Platt:
[Platt]
Sounds like a pipe dream to me and to Pirsig: "The ideal of a
harmonious society in which everyone without coercion cooperates
happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a devastating
fiction." (Lila, 24)

Andre:
Pirsig's motivation to write a metaphysics of Quality was in the hope that
it would improve the world a little bit. He made suggestions. Hope
presupposes DQ in some ways. You, my dear Platt do not even want to
contemplate such hope.

Platt:
If the free market is ultimately destructive and wasteful, what system of
production and distribution of goods and services would you
recommend?

Andre:
A system driven by quality.

PLatt:
While I appreciate your response, Andre, I find it long on dreams and
short on specifics of how your dreams are to be accomplished. For
instance, would you eliminate private property, prevent individual
inheritances, abolish corporations, increase taxes on the rich,
redistribute wealth, favor world government?

Andre:
'...long on dreams...' yea, that's the big problem with people who
desparately cling to static patterns...and are willing to fight to the death
of preserving them.( I am referring of course to those you mention) to which
Pirsig simply replies that a system that desparately shuts out change, shuts
out a challenge to its own static patterns, shuts out Dynamic quality as a
means of improving or replacing those static patterns is doomed to
degenerate and die.

Have you ever considered that Obama could be an example of the brujo???

Platt:
I'm getting the impression from what you say that we should all live like
Buddhist monks. I look forward to your correcting me. Thanks.

Andre:
Not quite. The monkhood is not for everybody. I think that a monk is a
special type of artist in the same way that a painter or musician or
carpenter or misfit or mother or teacher or anyone in any profession or
trade or variation thereof and those that fall outside of these 'boxes' is
an artist. It is in my world but obviously not in yours.

I do suggest you read the book Pirsig himself recommended by Steve Hagen:
Buddhism Plain and Simple.

To understand the MoQ you have to read between the lines...the statics
floating in the dynamic. The dynamic is what counts, not what is written...
what is experienced,... not the statics but  the dynamics.

It is only the dynamic that can fuse, amalgamate, resolve, make whole,  that
which is broken. Harmony...One.

And you are concerned about private property, corporations, inheritances,
wealth. taxes, redistribution, health, your job, the consumer index, the
stock exchange, the fucking state of Alabama???
Platt!!! What are you doing with the MoQ? Justifying the shit little things
you mention in this post (by selectively quoting Pirsig) or are you willing
to change your ideas and practice. NO, I WILL STICK TO MA GUNS BOY!!! Stick
to all those things I hold dear:..guns, private property, whites, jesus, no
taxes, no inhibitions ( except those forbidden by the Lord but I'll do them
anyways) ... .

Really PLatt, I do not care... but this is a philosophical forum. You
constantly come up with political crap.

Over and out
Andre