[MD] Social level for humans only

[MarshaV]

On Aug 28, 2010, at 6:49 AM, David Thomas wrote:

> On 8/28/10 5:05 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> Dave:

>> "You seem to care about the MoQ but care nothing about issues that
>> could invalidate it. I find that odd. Kind of like loving a paint for its
>> wonderful color, luster, and buttery feel.  Except that each morning you
>> wake up to find its all laying on the floor beneath the canvas, but you
>> still keep using it day after day, because YOU LOVE THAT PAINT!"
> 

> Dave:
> This is not ridicule Marsha it is trying to frame the issue in such a way
> that maybe the light comes on as to the possibility of inconsistencies or
> flaws in Pirsig's work and your responses that possibility.

Marsha:
You'll need to explain this.  My view of the MoQ is that Reality=Quality(DQ/sq).
That seems pretty straightforward and without inconsistencies.


> Would you keep doing the painting the way I describe above?Of course
> you wouldn't. You would try and figure out what the problem was.

Marsha:
You analogy doesn't work for me.  I paint.   No problem.   


> On one hand you firmly hold to Bo's view that on at least one issue Pirsig
> is completely wrong.  

Marsha:
I am not liking the way you are framing this issue.  It's a distortion.  I agree 
with Bo that the Intellectual Level has at its base a metaphysics designating 
reality is equal to subject and objects, SOM.  I did not come to this conclusion 
through SOL, but through Mahayana logic and personal insight.  I have never, 
though, thought RMP's rejection of Bo's view as a definitive rejection.  Just 
to reiterate:  

         Intellectual Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and the 
         rules for their rational analysis and manipulation.  Intellectual 
         patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework, 
         creating false boundaries, cages that give the illusion of 
         independence, or 'thingness'. This fourth level is a formalized 
         subject/object level where the subjective is supposedly stripped 
         from the process.  


> While at the same time rejecting or protesting all most all criticisms of his
> work by any others.  Usually at the same time posting something like  
> "not this-not that",  saying in effect to everyone, "Y'all haven't got a clue."  
 
Marsha:
First I reject your use of 'Usually'; maybe many time, but not usually.   
I am, though, quite comfortable with paradox.  And if you knew even a little 
about Quantum Physics, you should be too.  So I can discuss, from the static,
intellectual point-of-view, the MoQ, and also understand it from the DQ 
point-of-view,which can be collaborated in the Oxford dvd as 'not this, not that'.   
I see no contradiction, and it surprises me that you do.  It does suggest that 
you "haven't got a clue." 
 
 
> And you're surprised at the responses you get?

Marsha:
Yes, it surprises me very much.  The MoQ is pointing to a very dynamic 
shift in thinking.  I do not see that shift in a religious/mystic new-age mode, 
but in a paradigm shift in consciousness that represent Wisdom and is 
finding a parallel in the new physics, which in turn is finding a parallel 
in Buddhist philosophy.  


> Dave



Marsha 



 
___