[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

[MarshaV]

On Mar 9, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> Definition, connotation and history are intricately involved with patterning, and since the definition, connotation and history of the God-pattern is associated with  "an evil social suppression of intellectual and Dynamic freedom" it should be dropped.  Quality as presented in the Moq is a much better (untainted) label.
> 
> Steve:
> I think this is true to what Pirsig was saying in the annotations.
> 
> But I also think this from Walter Kaufman's introduction to Buber's "I
> and Thou" is consistent with the MOQ:
> 
> "[W]hy use religious terms?  Indeed, it might be better not to use
> them because they are always misunderstood. But what other terms are
> there?  We need a new language, and new poets to create it, and new
> ears to listen to it. Meanwhile, if we shut our ears to the old
> prophets who still speak more or less in the old tongues, using
> ancient words, occasionally in new ways, we shall have very little
> music. We are not so rich that we can do without tradition. Let those
> who have new ears listen to it in a new way."
> 
> A less lofty example is the homosexual's reclaiming of the word
> "queer." This word should have been dropped as a tool of social
> oppression, but better yet, it was reclaimed as a source of unity and
> pride.
> 
> Personally, I don't generally find use for the word God for talking
> about my experience because I would be misunderstood to be referring
> to a supernatural diety external to the universe, but not everyone
> uses the word theistically, and I have no argument with those who use
> it to talk about DQ, love, The Tao, the ground of being, our hopes for
> the future of humankind, etc.
> 
> Best,
> Steve


Steve,

Too often I speak  my own static untruths, and they can be promptly ignored.  Personally,
I find no need for the concept of god.  I am perfectly content with indivisible, undefinable 
and unknowable, but that's based on my experiences.   I think it points more easily 
towards direct experience which is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, and GOOD.  

I've read many of Walter Kaufman's translations of Nietzsche.  Prior to that, I had got 
caught in reading many turn-of-the-century translations which I later discovered to have
been written heavily influenced the translator/cultures point-ov-view and not Nietzsche's.  

I'm so tired of words, especially my own.


Love,
   Marsha
 
 
 
 



 
___