[MD] Buddhism's s/o

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:26 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> 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.

>Bodvar:
> 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.

Hey old friend,
Let's start at the beginning:

"In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided
into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social
patterns and intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all
there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic,
Biological, Social and Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing,"
that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any
encyclopedia, is absent." [LILA]

Dan comments:
Please note the sentence: That's all there are. So, in this context,
the MOQ context, patterns of value are all there are. Nothing is left
out. Dynamic Quality is absent. Patterns of value are primary.

>Bodvar:
> 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.

Dan:
I fail to see any of the "latter-day RMP" comments as being
inconsistent with his early writings. Bodvar, you're interpretation of
the MOQ is not what Robert Pirsig is on about. It is at odds with it.

>Bodvar:
> 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?

Dan:
You've referred to many, many writings as affirmation of your SOL
idea: RMP's, Matt's, Paul Turner's, etc. But you're merely reading
your own ideas into other people's words. Mr. Pirsig DID NOT
"(almost)" affirm the SOL in any way, shape, or form except according
to your own interpretation.

>Dan:
>> 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.

Dan:
I never claimed to be the keeper of THE MOQ context. You have that
honor, I thought.

>Dan:
>> 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?
>Bodvar:
> 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 .

Dan:
It does no good, Bodvar. That's my point. Some people are blinded by
their own prejudices. It is not strange at all. It is human nature.
And I am not immune. But I do know what makes good sense and what
doesn't.

Thank you for writing, Bo. It's always good to talk again,

Dan