[MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

[Frank Booth]

>You can experience DQ but as soon as you put it into words or pictures, or
>write a post about it it becomes Static.

Wrong.

There is the eternal moment.

And there is forgetfulness.

And sometimes there is a buggy.




________________________________
From: Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 5:30:48 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

Hello John,


On Behalf Of John Carl
> Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 8:49 PM
> Arlo and Mary,
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > > [Arlo]
> > >
> > > What has been interesting over the years is to witness the
> psychology
> > > behind this. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Bo's SOLAQI
> > > seems to be an attempt to place "Western Culture" as the morally
> > > dominant worldview, and reduces all non-Western worldviews to
> > > "social". That is, "we" (Western cultures) are
> > > "intellect",  non-Western cultures are "just social", and so our
> > > superiority can be claimed.
> >
> > [Mary Replies]
> > Don't see it that way, Arlo.  Non-Western cultures are SOM-based too.
> Just
> > as "guilty" of emersion in the subject-object paradigm.  There is no
> > difference, as you say too...
> >
> >
> I DO see it that way Arlo, in fact, I agree completely.  Western
> Culture
> already has materialistic dominance.  It doesn't seem quite fair to
> beqeath
> it moral dominance as well.  

[Mary Replies] 
Can you tell me how the East thinks if not by using subject-object logic?  I
kinda thought we all did that.  What about their pets?  Do they use
something other than subject-object logic too?

The whole social level = bad, intellectual
> level = good has been problematic for me from day one and I think Arlo,
> (as
> usual) makes some good points here.
> 
>
[Mary Replies] 
The two levels are at odds, but both are static representations of Dynamic
Quality.  Both have value.  Pirsig argues against the SOM attitude
vehemently, mostly in ZMM as I recall.  I think as DMB points out, he views
the MoQ as a way to transcend both.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Arlo: > The Buddha rests just as comfortably in
> > > semiotics as in gardening.
> >
> > Mary:The MoQ is as SOM as SOM can be.  It can be nothing else.  It's
> not in
> > a
> > higher level or a separate one.
> >
> >
> 
> John:  if the Moq is SOM then fuck it.  I don't know why we're even
> bothering.
> 
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Well, let me say it a clearer way, then.  The metaphysics itself, the books,
the logic, the arguments, the explanations, are all SOM\SOL.  If they
weren't, we wouldn't be able to read about it in books or talk about it
here.  The MoQ - the Metaphysics - is a static representation of the Dynamic
Quality but not the Quality itself.  

This distinction is probably also the source of our disagreement above about
the East?

> 
> > Arlo:
> >
> 
> 
> > > The MOQ is not a "burn
> > > down the universities" philosophy, it is a "reclaim the
> universities"
> > > philosophy. It does not condemn "science", it saves it. It does not
> > > dismiss rationality, but it expands its power. As DMB pointed out,
> > > the goal of the MOQ is beautiful science and intelligent art.
> >
> >
> John:
> 
> Well said Arlo.  And exactly to the point as well.  Hear, hear.  And
> dmb as
> well.  Every once in a while a parrot gets it right.
> 
> 
[Mary Replies] 
DMB's goals may be one desired outcome, but the goal of the MoQ as I
understand Pirsig was more general and applies to a lot more than just
science and art.  

The goal of the MoQ is to realize that reality is not divided into subjects
and objects but is undivided Dynamic Quality.  

You can experience DQ but as soon as you put it into words or pictures, or
write a post about it it becomes Static.

Statically yours,
Mary

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html