[MD] Loneliness

[MarshaV]

Ian,

Am I understanding this correctly, it is thought that Bo sees the
Intellectual Level as one pattern alone.  I don't think so.  Like the
definition of the patterns in the Social Level might be expanded to say
'patterns of culture that anthropologist and sociologists study', so the
definition of patterns in the Intellectual Level can be explained by
'patterns objectified for analytical thinking'.  

It has been suggested that Aztec patterns were somehow intellectual but not
objectifying, but like one of Einstein's thought experiments presented to
Bohr, the measurement (the process of determination and explanation) IS
objectification every step of the way.  What is built by objectification is
based on objectification, and any further MoQ-like projection is wishful
thinking. 


Marsha





-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 1:33 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Loneliness

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.
>
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/