[MD] Buddhism's s/o

[Andre Broersen]

Dan to the 'liberals':

Exactly. Even after Robert Pirsig writes two books postulating that
rather than subjects and objects being primary to intellect, patterns
of value are primary, many, many people will not believe.

Andre:
I think you've hit the nail smack bang on the head Dan. Thank you.

As Paul Turner wrote long ago: 'The MOQ adds a sense of intellectual quality, an aesthetic appreciation...that makes all the difference' which is anathema to Bodvar's definition of intellect.

And this points towards Platt's question to Horse:
[Platt]

I wonder, for example, where does "mystic understanding" fit in the levels?

Andre:
Exactly Platt, where does it fit in the SOL interpretation of intellect? It doesn't! because this definition is too restrictive. That is why there is a need for yet another level...a Quality level, a super rationality level.

The MOQ accepts 'mystical'/ 'pure experience' insights and accords them high intellectual value...Quality, dharma, Rta, Nothingness, the Void.


Pirsig wanted to 'move' to a new spiritual rationality. This is what the MOQ has given us...as the finger pointing to... .

But, of course, to the 'liberals' I have put my foot in it again because I used Mr. Pirsig as the authority on his MOQ.

I'll never learn.
Andre