[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:55 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dan:
>>
>> From LILA:
>>
>> "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the
>> source of all things, completely simple and always new."
>>
>> Dan comments:
>>
>> Please note that Robert Pirsig says that Dynamic Quality is
>> "pre-intellectual", not intellectual. It is simple and always new
>> (just in case John is reading).
>>
>>
>>>Mark:
>>> One could say that the electricity going into a TV is somehow more
>>> real than the picture coming out, but again I do not see the boundary
>>> there.  We cannot look back at experience, the act of looking back is
>>> experience in itself.  It would seem that there is a false boundary
>>> between dynamic quality and the intellect.  Zen would deny such a
>>> boundary.  The intellect in operation is part and parcel of DQ.  We
>>> divide it up into SQ for the purposes of communication and societal
>>> needs, but of course that division is artificial and used primarily
>>> for imparting awareness, and cohesiveness.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure who I am agreeing with here, perhaps I have once again
>>> gone off on an irrelevant tangent.  If so, my apologies.
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> Yes I would agree it is irrelevant in that this has nothing to do with the MOQ.
>>
>> Dan
>
> [Mark asking for an explanation from Dan]
> Yes, I am familiar with the quote from Pirsig concerning the
> pre-intellectual.  So, let me ask you this: at what point does
> something become intellectual?  There is firing of the nerves in the
> brain which results in the arising of ideas, which are then converted
> to words, and then subsequently through Broca's area are converted to
> movements of the mouth which result in vocalization.  Which part of
> that is the intellect?  Are the action potentials of the nerve, or the
> subsequent release and travel of transmitters across the synaptic gap
> considered to be the intellectual?  Each time a transmitter reaches a
> receptor and causes a post synaptic depolarization it is a new event.
> Each time a nerve fires it is a new event.  How do you define what is
> a new event and one that is not.  How can anything in the moment be
> anything but a new event?   How are you going to differentiate at
> which point something is pre- or post- intellectual?  This begs a
> little bit of definitions from you so that I can understand what you
> mean.

Dan:
First of all, in reading your questions I question your grasp on the
MOQ. Synaptic function is a biological level activity that can be
measured. It is physical. Intellect cannot be put under a microscope.
It is non-physical.

>Mark:
> Are we intellectually aware of how our mouths move when we speak?  Are
> we intellectually aware of how thoughts are forming in our heads?
> When we respond without intense thinking, is that intellectual?
> Please provide more explanations of how you separate an intellectual
> occurrence from any other occurrence.

Dan:
I presume you think as well as I do. You know the answers to these
questions already, Mark. If you wish to know how the MOQ addresses
these issues, intellect is the same as
thinking, intense or otherwise.

>Mark:
> In the precise instant that anything happens it is at the cutting
> edge.  It cannot be otherwise.  This is Zen, this is living in the
> present.  The idea that something we are currently thinking about is
> not at the cutting edge but somehow removed, begs some questioning.
> So we take Pirsig's quote, and relegate the intellect to something in
> the past?  Is that what he means?  Is he somehow separating that when
> we think we are separate from dynamic quality?  Wouldn't he be
> creating a false divide there?  I think you are misinterpreting
> Pirsig, I do not think that is what he meant.  But I could be wrong.

Dan:
We are not separate from Dynamic Quality. And yes, intellect is always
in the past. Direct experience is always new, always a surprise. Only
later does intellect tell us what is what. It is like riding in the
back of a pick up truck and watching the world recede. I think Robert
Pirsig says as much in the epilogue to a newer ZMM edition.

>Mark:
> I would argue that by putting Dynamic Quality at the cutting edge of
> reality, that is in the present moment, I am staying true to "THE" MoQ
> (emphasis from your post).  You would argue that the intellect is
> somehow removed from immediate reality.  I would like to hear you
> explain this without resorting to quotes.  I am perfectly willing to
> be wrong on this, but I need some explanation which goes  beyond the
> derogatory.  By simply quoting something that you possibly do not
> understand may be misleading to others, and we have a responsibility
> here.  I still think that you understand MoQ, so please explain this
> part.

Dan:
Well, first of all, we are here to discuss Robert Pirsig's work, so if
my quoting him is a problem, what are you doing here? Of course
intellect is removed from direct experience. If you knew a thing about
zen practice you would already know that. As far as derogatory, you've
done nothing but sling mud my way since you've been here. Why I am
even bothering to answer you is beyond me. But I am, so take it or
leave it. I really don't care.

Dan