[MD] The MOQ and Death

[Andre Broersen]

Ham to Andre:
[My conclusion -- Pirsig and Eastern philosopers use common terms in
unconventional ways.]

Andre:
Well, you know Ham, perhaps 'unconventional' to the 'average'
Westerner, but don't take this answer too seriously. I mean James used
'flux' Northrop the 'undifferentiated aesthetic continuum' and Pirsig
has his Quality and has stated that the MoQ is a continuation of main
stream American pragmatism.
Perhaps I should ask clarification from you about what you mean by
'unconventional'?

Ham:
[Conclusion -- Quality sparks new or "dynamic" ideas, while an idea
itself is a static pattern.]

Andre:
Well, to be nit picky Quality doesn't spark in and of itself. Dynamic
Quality is the cutting edge of undifferentiated experience after which
ideas, as static interpretations, form.

Ham:
[Conclusion -- The MoQ rejects a first cause or primary source and has
no use for logical explanations.]

Andre:
It is my understanding of the MoQ that it indeed rejects 'first'
causes. This would make it an Absolutist monism. Pirsig doesn't like
the connotations 'Absolute' has and therefore avoids its use. To him
it is 'a poor term which 'conveys nothing except rigidity and
permanence and authoritarianism and remoteness'.
'The Absolute' means the same as 'Dynamic Quality' and the
'nothingness' of Buddhism, but it is a poor term because of its
connotations. To me it connotes something cold,dead,empty of content
and rigid. The term 'Dynamic Quality' has opposite connotations. It
suggests warmth, life, fullness and flexibility'.(Anthony's PhD p
51-2).

I prefer and like the Buddhist term:'The First Principle' for DQ (ZMM)
and The Second Principle' for SQ.(LILA). In Buddhism (and I think the
MoQ agrees) form and formlessness, freedom and order, co-exist. (
Following Nagarjuna 'Middle Way'). DQ/SQ.

As to your 'logical explanations' Ham. Experience comes first... after
which explanations are constructed. We have seen that S/O logic is
inadequate to account fully for experience. Hence the accumulation of
paradoxes because all of a sudden experience was made to fit the
logical explanations.
If the MoQ gives different explanations to better account for
experience and if these explanations are then considered illogical
then I would suggest S/O logic is illogical or ,at least, the
assumptions upon which this logic is based need to be reconsidered
i.e. re- evaluated.Pirsig has done this in LILA).

Ham:
Andre, I've had 'Eureka!' moments of intuitive insight and ecstatic
moments of aesthetic enjoyment.  But I've yet to experience a dynamic
'aha' moment of an explanatory nature.  If I ever have one, I can
assure you I'll be able to explain it.

Andre:
I doubt if you'll ever get a dynamic 'aha' moment if you stay within
an Essentialist frame of explanation. Perhaps you could 'surrender' to
the MoQ for a bit... I have plenty of 'aha's'. (okay, ridicule me).

Gan bei
Andre