[MD] Loneliness

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Ant, Bo, Marsha,

I think that is helpful Ant, It's kinda what Marsha was saying too.

If we "objectify" the patterns too much - as primary objects - we've
defeated the whole point of MoQ.
It's the qualty and its relative static / dynamic aspects that interest us.

But Bo, Intellect is not "a pattern" in anyone's book (not even yours
I suspect ?).
It's a whole level in the MoQ

SOM-Intellect is a pattern, maybe a pattern of patterns, but
MoQ-Enhanced-Intellect is clearly a better one - is the point where we
keep differing. I'm just trying find a simple language to have a
conversation with you about the MoQ ... what it is and how we use it,
etc.

But, in fact if you see the whole of intellect as a simply static
pattern, you have clearly totally missed the MoQ - so all other bets
are off.
Regards
Ian

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Bo,

> >From what I remember (from correspondence), Pirsig says (as a general rule of thumb), that the Quality he discusses in ZMM is the same as the Dynamic Quality in LILA.  This is seen, for instance, in the passages in ZMM when he equates the Tao in the "Tao Te Ching" with (Dynamic) Quality.

> It's also worth reminding new readers to Pirsig's work that the (static or) conventional MOQ (of LILA) states that Quality = Dynamic Quality + the static quality patterns (the MOQ being just one of many static intellectual patterns...) while in my PhD (see http://robertpirsig.org/PhD.htm), it's seen that there is also a Dynamic (or the "World of Buddhas") perspective of the MOQ where all static quality patterns are seen simply as secondary, ephemeral manifestations of Dynamic Quality.

>
> I hope that's helpful.
>