[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Andre Broersen]

Mary to Andre:

The MoQ can be understood on many levels (with a small 'L').  The uncanny
nature of Pirsig's work is how well it functions from so many perspectives.
The things you speak of all have a relationship to the subject/object
dichotomy.

Andre:
With all due respect Mary, this is not the way I understand the MOQ. Within the MOQ (understanding) there are no subjects and no objects... and certainly no dichotomy... there are patterns of value and Mr. Pirsig attributed the object/subject concepts for clarification of their evolutionary relationship to eachother... to provide clarity. (Why Bodvar makes this into a subject of argument that confuses matters even more [ to substantiate his own interpretation] is beyond me The 'dichotomy' is proven to be artificial...which is the same as saying it has been a misconception, which is the same as saying it is a false representation of reality.

Mary:
The MoQ has shown me (the only person I can speak for is myself,
anyway) that all static patterns are illusion.  To ask if they are subjects
or objects is the wrong question, as I know you would agree.  Our difference
lies in where to place the MoQ and Eastern Mysticism in the "blessed
4-tiered hierarchy".

Andre:
You are very honest and I really appreciate this but my immediate reaction to you then is: why solidifying subjects and objects into comprising the intellectual level ( and nothing else... in the sense that everything else is 'qualified' by it...i.e separated into mind/matter; subject/object... and never the twain shall meet...this is what Bodvar keeps on harping about and this Cartesian/Lockean/Newtonian way of experiencing reality dating back to Aristotle? ).

Yes, you are correct Mary to say that 'all static patterns are illusion'... but only from a dynamic point of view.

Where to place the MOQ and Eastern Mysticism? Squarely at the intellectual level! Remember that the MOQ is a static intellectual pattern of value ( Bodvar hates this!!) The products, the insights of the MOQ and the insights of Eastern Mysticism cannot be conveyed to us other than in static patterns. But the wonderful thing about Eastern presentations and Mr. Pirsig's LILA presentations is that it is done indirectly, in the form of koans. It appeals to our aesthetic understanding of reality.

It recognizes the existence of this pre-intellectual aesthetic part in us. Read Lao Tzu's 'Tao te Ching'. It is wonderfull but does it tell you anything directly? No! You cannot comprehend it intellectually. The dynamics are first and, relying on your skillful representation of the dynamic you may more or less accurately remember your experience...of the tree (ZMM) or anything else.

Mary:
I say, all levels are a response to Quality.  That they have a hierarchy amongst themselves is only important in how they relate to themselves.  BUT, they are all nothing more important than static
(impermanent) patterns of value.  So, if I say to you that I would put Eastern Mysticism in the Social Level, and the MoQ there too (if you or anyone should decide to treat it as a religion), then so what?

Andre:
Well, I would say that you are pretty confused.
Eastern Mysticism (as you call it) is a philosophy not a religion. It is a high quality intellectual pattern of value ( devalued by your adherence to SOM as intellect by the way...therefore the relegation??).
THe MOQ is a high quality intellectual pattern of value ( Bodvar hates this as well).

Mary:
I have committed no heresy.  I have demoted nothing, for there is ultimately
nothing to demote.  The hierarchy between the levels is only that.  It is
not a hierarchy of Dynamic Quality.  Dynamic Quality has no hierarchy.  It
just is.  Do you see what I'm getting at?

Andre:
Yes, I see exactly what you are getting at but I do not see it!! Am I claiming that DQ has a hierarchy? Mr. Pirsig suggests, for moral clarity's sake that the division is best viewed from an evolutionary perspective... call it hierarchy ...whatever. Morality, and our(as sentient beings) experience can find within its evolutionary representation a far greater explanatory power than anything gone before. This is a wonderful trajectory the MOQ has laid open for us.

Mary:
The MoQ has much greater strength and explanatory power when you view its arch enemy - SOM - at the top of the hierarchy.

Andre:
Well here we go again Mary. So you advocate explaining the MOQ not from its own premises but from SOM?

Oh oh, to explain the MOQ do we need to go beyond the intellectual level? Is that it? Do we need to go to Bodvar's Q-level? His super-rational level? His Hyper level?

Mary:
If you put the MoQ itself inside its own hierarchy, it becomes just another metaphysics, like James or any of the others DMB and Steve are endlessly debating.

Andre:
Oh shit, we've done it again Mr. Pirsig! And, in LILA you have warned us so vehemently but unable to stay away from the fridge and the bar and the ladies at the watering hole... you did it anyway. Mr. Pirsig: shame on you!!!

Mary:
Subjects are whatever is doing the talking, and objects are whatever they are talking about.

Andre:
And there is absolutely no relationship between the two? No 'connection' whatsoever? The talker and the talked about is separate? The observer and the observed are separate? The knower and the known are separate?
Tell me something Mary: how can a known be known without a knower? How can a knower know without there be anything to know?

Do you see the absurdity of this?

Do you agree with the Buddhist insight of 'co-dependently' arising? Do you agree with the insight that without seeing there is nothing to be seen, that without hearing there is nothing to hear, that without feeling there is nothing to feel, or smell, or taste?

Our sensory perceptions are NOT a response to that which is supposedly to be sensed ( this is Lockean philosophy). We sense because there is sense. We experience because there is experience. And the word 'we' is also used as a figure of speech. We are experience. We are small self in relation to Big Self.

Mary:
Doesn't matter.  It's all static patterns of value fighting itout in the static hierarchy.  None of it's real.   It's just one "responseto Quality" fighting for position with another "response to Quality".  Ho Hum.

Andre:
So if this is your stance why bother about anything and everything? Why bother participating on this discuss?