[MD] MOQ Recursion

[MarshaV]

Mary, 

You are much, much, much too generous to mention me.  This is never 
the effort of one.  It is strange though, those I fought with the most, are now 
the ones I feel helped me the most.  Krimel?  He is a wise and wonderful 
wizard whose been very generous.  Bo, Platt and even our essential Ham 
have been wise and tolerant.  I am grateful to all, EVERYONE, and above 
all Mr. Pirsig.   And you?  I owe you for your beautiful, and always insightful 
posts.  I am so delighted you returned to the MD.


Marsha




On Aug 8, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Mary wrote:

> 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
> 
> 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


 
___