[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Platt

19 Feb. you wrote:

> Yes I think Buddhism is indeed "wooly" if not downright "hippie." 

At least from from a Western point of view, from the Oriental it may 
be the fountain of Clarity. It's nothing wrong with it, only that the 
Western mind can't easily approach it 

Bo before: 
> > But to be more specific, this reflects the "Quality/MOQ" issue.To
> > Pirsig the Quality=Reality insight was the all-consuming issue,
> > afterwards he would better stand on one leg and stare into the sun
> > of Quality,  on the other hand he could not resist working out a
> > system, but this was really a vice and he had to "flog" himself
> > for this sin. 

> Would it have been better if he had d stopped after ZAMM and not
> written Lila? Maybe so. But then there would be no MOQ. Right? 

Some follow-up after ZAMM was the natural continuation and I 
remember feeling deep inside me that this was not the last word from 
RMP. You know my "complaint" about LILA letting go the grip ZAMM 
had on SOM ... etc. and had the intellectual level continued as it was 
in ZAMM everything would have been fine, but - alas - it had turned 
into something more like the "mind" of the SOM the MOQ was meant 
to reject.   

> So should he have written the MOQ or not? Maybe he should have shown
> that we're immersed in Quality whether we know it or not (like he
> did to his students) and let it go at that. 

It's a big question, with only ZAMM Pirsig would perhaps have 
achieved some reputation like J.D. Salinger, yet I'm glad he did LILA. 
The DQ/SQ and static level "system" is perfect, and not anything 
except he could have conceived. I often feel I was in some like 
situation as young Phaedrus, but cannot imagine myself going 
beyond ZAMM's "moq".   

Bodvar