[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[118]

> Hi Platt,
> Thank you for your patient response.  I am here to discuss, not to dictate.
>  I agree, one must have a concept in order to discuss anything.  Rational
> thought is symbol manipulation.  Such symbols are also concepts.  I also
> fully understand the ineffability of dynamic quality, and do not think that
> such a thing is an insurmountable stumbling block.  I am not bashing dynamic
> quality by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> All concepts require some kind of jump as to their acceptance.  We may not
> realize this is what we are doing most of the time, due to indoctrination.
>  But such is the nature of agreement.  Even Buddhist philosophy which is
> considered highly intellectual requires heavy indoctrination.  This is not a
> bad thing, since some concepts are not necessarily intuitive, and require
> much thinking along the appropriate lines (or path).  Such thinking is
> provided conceptually.  In the end, an awareness dawns that becomes
> fulfilling.  Operating through that awareness can provide much meaning and
> happiness.
>
> A rational inquiry into dynamic quality must go through this process.  The
> theistic camp often resorts (though lack of training, or for expediency) to
> saying you just have to believe (become aware of) for conversion.  However,
> for those looking, there are plenty of rational arguments for the existence
> of God, some based on paradoxes.  The point is, MOQ, (IMO) states that
> rational arguments are needed to support the concept of dynamic quality.
>  One must assemble this from all sides that can provide insight.  Building a
> metaphysics is not easy, and as Pirsig notes, such construction can be self
> destructive due to the nature of such inquiry.
>
> Through such rational leading, the individual becomes aware of dynamic
> quality, and the actual arguments do not matter so much once the switch is
> flipped (if you will), unless, of course, he wants to convince another.  In
> my opinion, Phaedrus underwent a sudden epiphany and is trying to convert it
> to words.  He does this remarkably well as is evidenced by the success of
> ZMM.  Lila is more for those who have already got it.
>
> It is this awareness that we are after, getting there can be hard, but must
> be supportive and not doctrinal.  Using analogies to other forms of thought
> is appropriate if that helps create such awareness.  There are thousands
> upon thousands of pages of Vedic thought.  These are metaphysical arguments.
>  In the end however, one must bring in Gods.  The belief of such things is
> arrived at through rational discussion, which becomes more abstract the
> farther you get into it.  Once accepted, it becomes a whole different ball
> game.
>
> To begin dynamic quality with the dictate that we cannot describe it, is,
> in my opinion, not a very fruitful one.  There will not be many takers that
> can accept such a thing in the same way that many do not subscribe to the
> dictates of religion.  All of these are a search for a personally meaningful
> reality.  Such a reality can be arrived at through rational persuasion.
>  That is the nature of metaphysics, of all kinds.  Even Kierkegaard whom I
> regard to be an amazing thinker understands that jumps are necessary.  One
> must prepare for the jump, however, and not be told to do so by a drill
> sergeant.  Jumps happen spontaneously once the brain is ready.  Some get
> there easier than others, some have more need than others. However, many of
> us do not like being told what to think.
>
> Let me emphasize that this is not MOQ bashing, Quality was part of what
> saved my life.  I arrived at it in the most desperate way.  This is also not
> Pirsig bashing, the tools of metaphysics are what he uses.  It is simply an
> opinion by one person who is interested in the spread of MOQ as a useful
> metaphysics.  If one sees quality in everything, tolerance and appreciation
> result.  It is a move away from negative thinking to one full of surprises
> and miracles.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>
>>
>