[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt and All --


A fly in the ointment would appear to be the "theme of the week".  But just 
what is the "fly" and what is the "ointment"?

You introduced this query on 2/17 as a "contradiction in the MoQ".   You 
suggested that if the world is moral order, and reality is best understood 
as "picking and choosing" values, it contradicts the holistic view of Zenism 
that was Pirsig's launching pad.

Mati responded:
> That is how Pirsig addresses it. As the dominate intellectual pattern.
> Half the problems and the crisis that is formed is by assuming that
> it is the lone absolute intellectual pattern. Why propagate that notion
> if it is one of the problems?

Dave said:
> Zen seems to say that with practice one can achieve brief
> moments when DQ is directly perceived as if it was a stable
> pattern like normal reality and that this gives one great insight into
> "everything as it really is." And if you reach Buddha level this IS
> your normal reality.

Mary said:
> The Intellectual Level is SOM.  Please explain how I am incorrect.

Ron said:
> The intellectual level is:
> The belief "that the principles of mathematics are the principles
> of all things." or the belief that nature follows the same axioms
> and laws that mathematics do or more accurately, mathmatics
> is an extension of natural inorganic and biological laws.

I guess, as a non-literalist, I don't see the problem.  It would seem to me 
that a philosophical thesis, such as the MoQ, is an intellectual 
construction or concept of reality, not reality itself.  That conception or 
worldview is what we generally regard to be the philosophy.  It may or may 
not define "ultimate truth", but it offers a particular reality perspective 
for consideration

I also see no reason why relational existence (SOM), at least, should not be 
acknowledged or analyzed as a mode of reality, since we do it all the time. 
This is the basis for science, ethics, morality, history, esthetics, logic, 
mathematics, and virtually every other study conducted by mankind to acquire 
the knowledge needed to survive.  What kind of civilization would we have 
today if man had decided to reject objective knowledge and depend instead on 
the images of his dream states or contemplative rituals?

Human beings are "analytical creatures", and intellection is the tool of 
analysis. If we didn't have intellect we would be reduced to a lower form of 
animal.  Surely that isn't what Pirsig is suggesting, no matter how he 
thinks the intellect is derived.  The world we inhabit is not a homogeneous 
"ointment" but a self-sufficient system of differentiated things and events 
that behave according to the laws and principles of nature.  The Knower of 
this world  remains the most challenging enigma of all to fathom.  If we 
ever resolve this enigma, it will be through Philosophy.

Essentially speaking,
Ham