[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Mary]

Hi Andre,

I have some comments below...

On Behalf Of Andre Broersen
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 10:35 AM
> 
> 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? ).
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I'm trying hard to understand your objection here, and I can't speak for
Bodvar, only for myself.  For me, the catalyst for Pirsig was his
recognition that the world is not fundamentally divided into subjects and
objects but is Dynamic and Static Quality.  I wonder why that was such a
great achievement?  Why was it so hard for him to see it?  Why did he
struggle so much and end up in a mental hospital trying to understand it?
Could it be because everyone else viewed the world in terms of subjects and
objects and considered anyone who didn't crazy?  Could that be why we are
all here discussing a couple of paperback books written so many years ago
now?  

> 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. 
[Mary Replies] 
Sure.  I don't argue with that at all.  
> 
> 
> 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 Replies] 
I've said elsewhere I think that Pirsig's conception of the MoQ was the
product of a high Quality thought process that's founded on SOM.  In the
beginning, at least, he used SOM to defeat itself.

> 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 Replies] 
When Pirsig says that it is immoral for a lower level to threaten a higher
level, we have to remember that he always follows this with the caveat that
the higher levels also have a responsibility not to destroy their parents -
since to do so would result in their own doom.  Collapse.  

All levels are discrete sets of patterns of value that are in tension as you
know.  And as you also know, tension pulls both ways.  If it doesn't, there
is no tension.  In this tug-of-war between the levels there can never be a
winner since to 'win' over another level (in either direction) is to
ultimately lose.

The hierarchy of the Levels is not really a hierarchy at all.  It is a
circle that is "enlarged" or "improved" or made "of higher Quality" so to
speak by Dynamic Quality.

Best,
Mary