[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[Andre Broersen]

Tim to Andre:
...I cannot think of DQ as meaningful and communicable at teh moment; 
perhaps it could be either or, but not both at the same time. More talk 
seems to make things worse, not better.

Andre:
Well, it seems that you agree with Pirsig in this sense when he says 
that 'Life can't exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying 
power. To cling to Dynamic Quality alone, apart from any static patterns 
is to cling to chaos.He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic 
Quality by studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to define 
what it is'. And therefore he 'turned his attention away from any 
further explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned toward the static 
patterns themselves'. (LILA, pp124-5). And this resulted in the MOQ.

Tim:
I keep going back to RMP's admission that (page 399 of 409, 
Lila),"Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral 
act since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a 
higher mystic one."

Andre:
Agree. 'It is important to keep all 'concepts' out of Dynamic Quality. 
Concepts are always static. Once they get into Dynamic Quality they'll 
overrun it and try to present it as some kind of concept itself'. 
(Anthony's PhD, p35)

Tim:
I think I recall a paragraph in ZAMM about this too: that the solution 
would be a really simple, subtle change: individuals behaving better, 
collectively. In this sense, I think the metaphysics part is just a 
detour in the abyss, trying to pick up lost souls - like every other 
well-intentioned religion.

Andre:
Perhaps you mean this one:'The place to improve the world is first in 
one's own heart and head and hands, and then work outward from there'. 
(ZMM, p291) And if you mean by 'individuals behaving better' that they 
'care' for what they are doing, that the 'real cycle you're working on 
is a cycle called yourself' and that we realize that 'the machine that 
appears to be 'out there' and the person that appears to be 'in here' 
are not two separate things, yeah well, I wouldn't really call them 
'simple'. And, it is not so subtle either. But this living realization 
will determine whether they grow toward Quality or fall away from 
Quality altogether.(ZMM,p319) No doubt you remember 'the Giant' Pirsig 
talks about, this nameless, faceless system. This 'superorganism'...'who 
is a pattern of values superimposed on top of biological human 
bodies'... reaching out its tentacles and ready to devour us and digest 
us.(LILA,pp222-3). The only other reference to do with 'tentacles' as 
far as I remember is used in ZMM, when Chris has found some 'funny 
plants'. Phaedrus explains that their 'tentacles can paralyze small 
fish'.(ZMM, p361)Tentacles tend to have that effect, they paralyze, 
devour. They have an alientating effect.

So, no, I do not think that the 'solution would be a really simple and 
subtle change'.

I do not agree that the MOQ is a 'detour in the abyss' nor that it is 
'trying to pick up lost souls'. It is a metaphysics, not a religion. 
Nobody is trying to force Pirsig's MOQ down anybody's throat as the 
ideas of God and the Devil are forced down little children's throats. To 
down-grade Pirsig's MOQ to religious status is an immoral act. It is a 
social pattern of value trying to devour an intellectual pattern of 
value. 'In the MOQ, then, reality (as a whole) is denoted by the term 
'Quality' which Pirsig divides into Dynamic Quality and static quality. 
'Quality' (with a capital 'Q') is used to denote reality (by which 
Pirsig regards as the totality of what exists) in addition to its 
traditional context as a term for excellence...while Dynamic Quality 
denotes the unconceptualised part of reality'( Anthony's PhD, pp 34-5)

There is no 'belief' in the same sense of a belief in a God required 
here. It is very pragmatic and empirically verifiable and adheres to the 
Buddha's statement when he told his followers not to believe in his 
teachings because he said his teachings were true. He simply told them 
to see for themselves. Do not take my word for it.

Tim:

IF the metaphysics is trapping people rather than pulling them out of the trap...  This is why it might be, strictly speaking, immoral.

Andre:
How is 'the metaphysics' 'trapping people'?

Tim:
I think this is an important clarification you make: "You do the judging and the 'choosing'...".

Andre:
Yes, and sometimes 'it' does it which depends (imho) upon one's 'sensitivity' Quality. To explain, I went to an island in Lugu lake (China) and there was built a beautiful old Buddhist temple. When asked how the spot was chosen to build the monk simply said; 'It chose it for us'. It is in this sense that I mean it. To what extent is one in tune with one's dharma in relation to rta.

Tim:
this action proved pretty settling for me,

Andre:
Thank you.