[MD] freewill

[MarshaV]

On Apr 10, 2011, at 2:52 PM, X Acto wrote:

> 
> 
> Hello Dan, Marsha>
>> 
>> On Apr 10, 2011, at 10:10 AM, X Acto wrote:
>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> There are not many MOQs. There is one, as far as I am concerned. Any
>>> other theory should be called by another name, otherwise it leads to
>>> confusion.
>>> 
>>> Ron:
>>> Thats a real absolute authoritative view, Marsha's not going to like that too
>>> much.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> The MoQ as we discuss it is an Intellectual Static Pattern of Value, and is 
>> subject to
>> an individual's static history and the dynamics of the experience.  RMP knows 
>> that
>> there cannot be an absolute MoQ.  In this quote, he acknowledges the MoQ's
>> vulnerability.  I may agree with Dan on many issues, but that he has an 
>> absolute
>> understanding of the Quality of the MoQ, I have to say:  No. No. No.  -
> 
> Dan:
> Hi Ron and Marsha
> 
> Of course I don't have an absolute understanding of the MOQ or of
> anything for that matter. I think you're both putting words in my
> mouth. I said there is only one MOQ, not many. That doesn't translate
> into an absolute MOQ, however. It is a both a static and Dynamic
> document.
> 
> And Robert Pirsig has talked! He wrote a book about the MOQ. He has
> written much subsequent work about it as well. He has shown where
> certain interpretations work while others do not. He has suggested
> that if someone wants to diverge from the MOQ with their own theories,
> that he doesn't have a problem with that as long as they name it
> something else.
> 
> If we are all to start throwing our own ideas out there without regard
> to the framework of the MOQ, then what are we doing here? Isn't this a
> forum to discuss THE MOQ? I thought it was. That's what the guidelines
> say.
> 
> Marsha:
> On the other
>> hand, I think there is great value in trying to deepen ones understanding, and 
>> if one
>> can kill those intellectual patterns even for a few minutes, than great good 
>> has been
>> accomplished.
>> 
>> “There is the Quality of Zen and there is the Quality of the MOQ and they are 
>> not the same thing anymore because the MOQ is an intellectual static pattern and 
>> already it’s been polluted plenty to get into that pattern. And all of a sudden 
>> you’re taking sides and things... You’re picking and choosing and in Zen you’re 
>> not supposed to do that! I’ll give you that koan: ‘the way is not difficult but 
>> it avoids picking and choosing.’ That’s a famous koan: the quality that is 
>> Quality is arrived at not by picking and choosing.”
>> 
>> 
>>  http://robertpirsig.org/AHP.htm
> 
> Dan:
> 
> Which is what freedom is all about!
> 
> Ron:
> But Zen is not Moq, RMP just explained the difference
> above between the two ideas. But this difference is bridged when we look at 
> connecting
> the two of them.
> The koan: The quality that is Quality is not entirely intellectual, would 
> explain the connection
> between the two ideas better and link to what he says about experience being 
> reality and 
> 
> reality being composed of value, every last bit. It would support inorganic 
> picking and choosing
> organic picking and choosing and yet affirm what the Zen practicioners say, that 
> the way
> avoids picking and choosing because it avoids picking and choosing 
> intellectually alone.
> It links to the idea of care in craftsmanship and to the concept of the code of 
> art with functionality
> because it appeals to a larger array of value than just intellectual.
> Freedom from choice is just an intellectual trap if it does not relate to 
> meaningfulness in experience.


Hello Ron,

I find no reference to craftsmanship or the code of art in the entire paper.  
But I suppose you will interpret as you will.   


Marsha


 
___