[MD] Bo's right! For all the wrong reasons? (Part2)

[MarshaV]

On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Krimel wrote:
> 
> 
> The biggest problem with the MoQ account of this is the idea of "betterness"
> which I would call "harmony". Betterness and harmony are not properties of
> DQ or SQ they are properties of the relationship or proportion of SQ to DQ.
> In is not a matter of DQ good, SQ bad. It is a matter of the balance of DQ
> and SQ. Pirsig plays lip service to this but even a casual stroll through
> the archives will reveal that it is Pirsig waxing rhapsodically about DQ
> that really catches on. People here seem to think the DQ is "betterness" and
> that it is more important than SQ. I think they are wrong on both counts.

Greetings Krimel,

I'm a little confused by your term "People here...".  I cannot know for sure if 
you consider me in that group, but I thought I'd make my point-of-view clear.
For me, DQ and sq are interdependent, and it is not that one is better than 
another.  It is, though, that individuals and the culture, with only a few 
exceptions, have most of their focus on spov to the point that they are 
identified as independent, inherently existing objects (things-in-themselves)
in an external world.  This is a deeply held misapprehension. If I might 
emphasize the betterness of an unpatterned experience, it is because such 
experiences reconfigure ones understanding from a reality of self and 
objects to one of ever-changing, interconnected processes in which 
humans are fully integrated.  Meditation is a technique that may offer
first-hand such a direct re-cognition.  


Marsha

 
 
 
 

 
___