[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Alexander Jarnroth]

But MoQ isn't primary experience, it's a concept based upon primary
experience as is also the Cartesian dichotomy. I think Pirsig let Phaedrus
say in both Zen and Lila that he didn't really want to infer any concepts
from that: but that wouldn't solve the problem he had set out to solve, so
his rational mind forced such a conception into place.
I think there are a great lot of things which is explained much better in
other concepts than in MoQ, which also are part of experience. Thus I think
one shouldn't confine oneself to MoQ. There is nothing really that says one
has to. MoQ just happens to be a rational, that I function, method of
determining and interpreting values, or purposes. Nothing more.
MoQ isn't reality either. It's just a mental construct.

If I have misunderstood, you are welcome to correct me. You can say that's
one of my reasons for being here.

/A


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Andre Broersen
Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 16:30
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value

Andre:
Can you tell me /A what lies 'outside' the MOQ? What do you mean when you
and Ham 'consider the MOQ in a wider context'? What 'reality' are you
referring to that lies outside of experience. Is there something you are
referring to that lies outside of cosmological evolution? If so, I am very
interested to hear.

Have you achieved a way of arriving at 'concepts' without experience? Have
you arrived at concepts that have no value? Do you have any examples you'd
like to share with us?

It seems to me that when you say 'MOQ just considers experience', with your
use of the term 'just' you are wiping out Pirsig's intention and achievement
and completely misunderstand the MOQ. I really wonder what you are looking
for here on this discuss.