[MD] Loneliness

[skutvik at online.no]

Anthony, Ian, All 

11 Sep. Anthony wrote:

> 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.  

Thanks Anthony, however already ZAMM's proto-moq has the 
Romantic/Classic split and I don't see any problems with this a "proto- 
DQ/SQ". The point is that the left " is the dynamic - and  the right the 
static Quality. Any Quality "above" the split  leaves us the Quality/MOQ 
divide which is a variety of SOM (see below)  

> 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...) 

Postulating an existence - dynamic or not - independent of any 
conceptual explanation is in fact SOM and the MOQ rejects SOM, 
even in this disguise. .             

> while in my PhD 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. 
 
Not even Buddhism can escape language, in that case the interpreters 
violates the Buddha World by their talking about it. Buddhism IS the 
Buddha World and its Manifestations like the MOQ is Quality and its 
static manifestations. The Quality/MOQ split is impossible for the 
simple reason of being one of SOM's platypuss.  

Ian said:
> 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. 

Relative static/dynamic???  

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

The 4th. level is part of the MOQ all right, but no-one knew about it 
before it was written in Pirsigs book, so THAT is not the fundamental 
split.  

> SOM-Intellect is a pattern, maybe a pattern of patterns, 

Hold it! In the SOM "intellect" is just about everything going on in what 
SOM calls "mind". MOQ's 4th. level is the VALUE of a subjective-
mental realm as different from a objective-corporeal ditto.   

> 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. 

It's not useful speaking about a "MOQ-enhanced-intellect". MOQ's 4th. 
level has nothing to do with SOM's "intellect" that you English speaking 
people has deemed "what goes on inside mind".  

> 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

Yes, I see the 4th level as static, what else?

Hope I haven't painted myself into any logical corners.

Bodvar