[MD] Loneliness

[David Thomas]

Bo,Ian,John,Marsha,All,

Before continuing with the "Pirsig/James connexion" a few comments on the
static/dynamic issue. Yes, RMP first professed his love of the dynamic and
often uses it in his examples of higher value, but he is also cautionary of
both static and dynamic at the extremes. Simplifying them to a rule of
Dynamic=Good/Static=Bad is not only wrong it is dangerous. I seem to recall
something about the Middle Way?

>[Marsha in Uncertainty]
> You are intellectualizing and up to your eyeballs in objectification. .......
> You might say these non-Western peoples didn't get
> totally bogged down in a static, valueless modernity.

> Think about this, Buddhism deals with breaking down the belief in an
> inherently existing self and objects, and it wasn't developed for Western
> peoples.   

>[Ian]
> If we "objectify" the patterns too much - as primary objects - we've
> defeated the whole point of MoQ.

>[John Carl in Uncertainty]
> What did hoboes call the stuff in the big communal
> pot?  Mulligan stew?  Yeah, dish me up some of that.

But when slurping the soup dynamic, even the depression era hobos knew to be
skeptical when offered "Rainbow Stew" ... "we'll all be drinkn' that sweet
bubble-up and eatn' that rainbow stew."

When Marsha says, "intellectualizing and up to your eyeballs in
objectification." I'm not really sure what she means but I suspect it
implies that attempts to stabilize the understanding or interpretation of
the MoQ is a static activity and of questionable value.  I guess that by
extension RMP writing ZMM and Lila, "objectifying" them into books was
value-wise a "degenerate activity". Ops, he already said that. He also said
something like,"If you don't generalize, you don't do metaphysics."

About the use in the West of Oriental religions/philosophies as a panacea
for "valueless modernity" I suggest rereading the hippie section of Lila.
(303-305 in my HB edition) maybe followed by an extended trip to Laos,
Cambodia, or even China to see them in action. And for a view from the other
side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)

"Fear and Loathing" of SOM obscures that fact that when it emerged from the
dynamic soup it was the very best, highest value pattern around. And the
fruits of that tree have been enormous and the unintended negative
consequences by comparison much smaller.(But not to be under estimated
either)

Since I think better graphically over the years I have worked to graphically
represent the MoQ. Somewhere I saw? (or maybe I could have made it up) an an
adaption of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs diagram to the MoQ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.

Imagine the five levels he shows as four with organic on the bottom and
intellect on the top. And the white space under and around it as Dynamic
Quality. Draw an arrow pointing up on the left side and label it good,
freedom, higher value, dynamism etc. Draw another one on the right point
down, label it stability. Organic is the most stable, intellectual the
least. And that's a good thing. But both arrows are needed to balance the
ying and yang of reality.

Dave