[MD] Buddhism's s/o

[skutvik at online.no]

Dan and Group.

1 May.:

Mary had written: 

> My question centers around the nature of belief.  How do we become
> convinced?  What is necessary to achieve the state of being convinced
> of anything?  It seems much easier to convince a child of anything
> than to convince an adult ...snip. 

Dan:
> 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. You seem
> convinced otherwise. Bo is, too. So's Platt. Marsha? I don't know. I
> think she's starting to see the cracks in Bo's SOL. I guess most
> people are so entrenched in the primacy of subject/object thinking
> that they'll resort to ridiculous lengths to maintain the illusion.

It's both nonsensical and ridiculous (to say) that Pirsig's message is "...  
that  rather than subjects and objects being primary to intellect, 
patterns of value are primary". With such premises no wonder you see 
me and the other "liberals" as bogey persons.

The MOQ's thesis is that the Subject/Object distinction (SOM) is not 
existence's primary  split, the Dynamic/Static Quality is!!!!  I say "the 
MOQ's premises" because the latter-day RMP has many anti-moqish 
things. And the MOQ is all I care about.

Regarding the intellectual level's definition half and half of LILA 
promotes the SOL (intellect = SOM) and the fundamentalist's intellect 
= something that no-one know what is. And Dan, can you see the SOL 
issue be kept going for ten years plus just because I am obstinate 
(DMB's last resort) and you also overlook the Paul Turner letter which 
was a great shift when the mind- or thinking -  intellect was forcefully 
rejected by Pirsig and the SOL (almost) affirmed. Is slander and 
outright lies the last stand of the fundamentalists? 

> I am not being mean-spirited when I say Bo's SOM as Quality's
> intellect doesn't make sense in the context of the MOQ. 

Nobody think you mean-spirited, and I don't mind stiff opposition as 
long as the MOQ supports me. Besides I don't think you are the 
keeper of THE MOQ context. 

> I am stating a fact. And if others choose to believe in nonsense I
> can't stop them. No one can. You say you want an example of some
> "thing" that's not a subject or object yet you're convinced subjects
> and objects are all there is. Do you see the problem? 

Mary breaks no logical rules - if that is what you mean - by asking for 
non-S/O intellectual patterns. Strange that no ones are suggested ... 
except the said latter-day (Lila's Child) ones .

Bodvar