[MD] MOQ Recursion

[Mary]

Hi Platt (and Marsha),

Enjoyed your story about Raphael.  I don't have a tale of quest.  Wish I
did.  Always was very a-theistic, hardheaded, pragmatic, a real pain in the
ass in other words.  All I know is I read the books back in the 90's and
participated on the Squad for a while, then dropped the whole thing for
about 10 years.  When I came back a few months ago I started out arguing
with Marsha and disagreeing with Bo.  I have no epiphany story or anything,
but I know it was while reading Marsha's posts, disagreeing, then being
unable to counter her replies that I suddenly came to understand things
differently than ever before.  Don't even know when.  Might have been in
February, but all at once a door opened.  Very strange really.  Not
something I was looking for especially, but very glad I found it.  I could
very easily have been the female version of Krimel here instead.

I owe you one, Marsha.

Mary



> Hi Mary,
> 
> We seem to wear the same set of spectacles. In the opinion of some,
> this makes
> us crazy. Pirsig was prescient in predicting how we would be viewed by
> those
> who are stuck with SOM spectacles:
> 
> "The same is true of subjects and objects. The culture in which we live
> hands
> us a set of intellectual glasses to interpret experience with, and the
> concept
> of the primacy of subjects and objects is built right into these
> glasses. If
> someone sees things through a somewhat different set of gasses or, God
> help
> him, takes his glasses off, the natural tendency of those who still
> have their
> glasses on is to regard his statements as somewhat weird, if not
> actually
> crazy." (Lila, 8)
> 
> Long ago while still in college I began to question the validity of the
> rational SOM world view. Professors in different disciplines appealed
> to reason
> to justify their beliefs, yet all their world views were different. The
> art
> professor saw a Raphael painting as an historic relic. The science
> professor
> saw the painting  as a neurological consequence of the impact of
> vibrations on
> the eye. The literary professor saw the painting as justifying
> religious
> oppression. I saw the painting and realized that reason was helpless to
> explain
> the painting's initial impact on me. Indeed it became obvious to me
> that reason
> alone could not at first glance distinguish between a Raphael and a
> finger
> painting. Something else had a vital role in forming direct experience.
> 
> Thus began my life long search for a better understanding than the
> Church of
> Reason alone could provide. Further evidence of reason's limitations
> came from
> the insights of physicist Paul Davies:
> 
>  "But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a
> closed
> and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible.
> We are
> barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation , by the very
> rules
> of reasoning that prompt us to seek an explanation in the first place.
> If we
> wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of
> "understanding" from that of rational explanation."  (The Mind of God,
> p. 231)
> 
> In other words, embrace a new set of spectacles. So I tried the MOQ
> pair, and
> just as the song says about another kind of illumination, "I was blind,
> but now
> I see."
> 
> Platt
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 Aug 2010 at 6:41, Mary wrote:
> 
> Hi Platt,
> 
> > Hi Mary,
> >
> > Right you are. Pirsig agrees. The MOQ uses SOM intellect "to make
> > itself
> > known," but the "central reality of the MOQ is not an object or
> subject
> > or
> > anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not by
> > reasoning
> > of any kind." SOM intellect "doesn't tell us anything about the
> essence
> > of the
> > MOQ." (LS,132)
> >
> > Thus, quagmires like recursion that spring from the limitations of
> SOM
> > are
> > irrelevant to understanding the MOQ. Rather, the essence of the MOQ
> is
> > apprehended this way:
> >
> > "Like the empty sky it has no boundaries
> > Yet it is right here ever serene and clear.
> > When you seek to attain it, you cannot see it.
> > You cannot take hold of it.
> > But neither can  you lose it.
> >
> >                           -- Yung-chia
> >
> 
> What you say here and quote here is very lovely.  It is true that
> recursion
> is a problem if you are trying to shoehorn Value, Morals, and Quality
> into
> concepts, but as you say, all this dissolves when we see the
> _inadequacy_ of
> the intellect to comprehend.
> 
> Best,
> Mary
> 
> 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/md/archives.html
> 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/md/archives.html