[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[Joseph Maurer]

On 9/8/09 8:28 AM, "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

Hi Arlo, Marsha and all,

<snip>
> Do I think that simply reading ZMM induces "enlightenment"? While I
> suppose it *can*, my guess is that its not so machinistically causal.
> In ZMM, he describes *his* path to enlightenment, and walking that
> path alongside him may certainly guide others to the same. But like
> Pirsig later describes about his peyote experience in LILA, one has
> to be *open* to enlightenment, if one merely walks along blinded by
> preconceived prejudices, expectations and whatnot, one will likely
> walk away feeling "enlightened" without really becoming so.
<snip>

Imho that is quite a mouthful.  I approach ³enlightenment² from the point of
view of evolution.  Evolution is not the same as learning.  Evolution
requires levels in existence.  No individual can create evolutionary levels!
Preparing consciousness to recognize evolutionary levels is work.  There are
many distractions.  The levels are undefined.  Any conceptualization is an
analogy or metaphor.  Imho they are perceived in flashes.   To conceptualize
them is to experience their activity. The debate about SOM and MOQ indicates
that there is much to say about conceptualizing evolving activity‹inorganic,
organic1, organic2, emotional (social), intellectual, higher emotional
(enlightenment 1), higher intellectual (enlightenment 2).  Quite a task
indeed!

Joe


> [Marsha]
> But I would like to know what you think too. What is the message here?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I would say the message is "you can't have one without the other".
> Pirsig has described his books as "the path to enlightenment" (ZMM)
> and "the path back" (LILA), and I think that any attempt to isolate
> or even dismiss one as being "unnecessary" or "unimportant" is very
> problematic. Trying to apply LILA without the understanding (or
> "enlightenment", as Pirsig calls it) of ZMM is like trying to heal a
> gunshot wound by covering it with a band-aid; it does not address the
> root problem.
> 
> Do I think that simply reading ZMM induces "enlightenment"? While I
> suppose it *can*, my guess is that its not so machinistically causal.
> In ZMM, he describes *his* path to enlightenment, and walking that
> path alongside him may certainly guide others to the same. But like
> Pirsig later describes about his peyote experience in LILA, one has
> to be *open* to enlightenment, if one merely walks along blinded by
> preconceived prejudices, expectations and whatnot, one will likely
> walk away feeling "enlightened" without really becoming so.
> 
> There is an evident historical danger to seeing the inscribed tablets
> of prophets, the words handed down to us by those who have achieved
> enlightenment, in the misunderstanding and reification of these
> "words" as containing the "meaning". On a much larger scale, it
> harkens towards the "spirituality/religion" split, one being the
> pursuit of enlightenment, the other being the reified words of others
> who have achieved enlightenment. When we let the latter forgo the
> former, we are in for a world of trouble, not only in having a
> "cult-like" deification of another's words, but (as I've suggested)
> in not understanding the meaning or importance of the words in front of us.
> 
> Or, if you don't "get" ZMM, you are going to understand LILA from a
> S/O perspective that renders the framework of LILA not only
> erroneous, but dangerous, because "applying the MOQ" from that
> vantage point is, as I suggested, applying a band-aid to a gunshot
> wound. You have to dig deep to find that bullet. Then extract it.
> Then, and only then, can you apply dressing to the wound.
> 
> That's my take, anyway.
> 
> 
> 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/