[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[118]

Steve,
I think that Pisig's point of the glasses off sayings are that such speech makes no sense to the glasses on.  If I say "the other side of air" it is the same thing as saying nothing at all to those with the glasses on.  So am I saying anything at all?  I think I am.  It is saying without saying.  Same as the Zen saying "thinking without thinking".  It is an expression of DQ.  One can say nothing, yet say a lot.  No rigid sq is formed, it is DQ.  Read some of the mystics, and you will see.

Mark

On Oct 14, 2011, at 6:17 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> dmb:
> Saying things and having the glasses off are two different things. You
> keep asking about the "crazy things said by someone with the glasses
> off" and I keep telling you that saying things means you don't have
> the glasses off anymore. As soon as you start talking you've got the
> glasses on.
> 
> Steve:
> I would like to agree. Pirsig shoulod have been careful to make that
> distinction, but unfortunately that is not what Pirsig says. Pirsig
> says that when the people who "still have their glasses on" hear the
> statements of the one who has taken off his glasses, the ones who
> "still" have their glasses on "regard his statements as somewhat
> weird."
> 
> Our disagreement is not at all about what we wish he had said. It is
> about the consequences of what he _did_ say. I see him as having
> slipped up here. You, it would seem, would prefer to look the other
> way. Fine. Whatever. What is important is that we agree on what he
> should have said if we are to read him as having dropped the
> appearance-reality problem.
> 
> Ron:
> Pirsig does speak about the ability to get up and "leave the movie"
> that his own experience of the movie thatre in empty space frightened
> him, and that when he stepped off he did'nt fall but flew.
>  
> Again this two-folded meaning of DQ are simply contextual by way of
> one explanation. DQ and following DQ. If DQ is the well spring and
>  unintelligible, Following DQ means being aware of the movie, the glasses.
> It means breaking the static patterns of eternal truths. The recreation act
> emerges and at once an understanding, thus following DQ is considered
> a static knowing yet DQ itself is uninteligible. The intent seems to be
> to constantly destroy and recreate the self from the now of experience.
>  
> Putting alot of cultural perrienal myths into perspective in Joseph Campbell
> terms of the monomyth and the human psyche.
>  
> ...
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html