[MD] The hard question

[118]

Joe,
Obviously Pirsig has never heard of synchronicity as expounded by CJ
Young and Lao Tsu.  Now therein lies true mystical thought, there sure
ain't no puzzle pieces thar!  Just read some of the passages by
Eckhart or Bohme (as they are easy), to get a feel for DQ.  Puzzle
pieces are not very mystical, and help one avoid thinking of Quality
as unity.  However, this is, after all, MoQ, and nobody said anything
about being mystical, there are rules to follow.  One must do his/her
best to try to explain within those rules.

What are puzzle pieces for MoQ, are not for the mystics (in fact such
a thing would sound silly).  The notion of puzzle pieces is, of
course, the application of SQ to SQ/DQ, which we know is doomed to
misinterpretation.  So puzzle pieces should not be confused with
something else, it is just an analogy, just like DQ has nothing to do
with trains, whatsoever.  And of course, DQ has nothing to do with the
event of mixing of paint from a pallet; it is all analogy in case
somebody was taking this all too literally and getting upset.
Mark

On 6/2/12, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Marsha,
>
> "The world comes to us in an endless stream of puzzle pieces that we would
> like to think all fit together some how, but that in fact never do.  There
> are always some pieces like platypi that don't fit and we can either ignore
> these pieces or we can give them silly explanations or we can take the
> whole
> puzzle apart and try other ways of assembling it that will include more of
> them.  When one takes the whole ill-shaped, misfitting structure of a
> subject-object explained universe apart and puts it back together in a
> value-centered metaphysics, all kinds of orphaned puzzle pieces fit
> beautifully that never fit before.
>
>     (Lila, Chapter 8)
>
> On 6/2/12 12:15 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>>
>> "The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is called empiricism. It
>> claims
>> that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or by thinking
>> about what the senses provide. Most empiricists deny the validity of any
>> knowledge gained through imagination, authority, tradition, or purely
>> theoretical reasoning. They regard fields such as art, morality, religion,
>> and
>> metaphysics as unverifiable. The Metaphysics of Quality varies from this
>> by
>> saying that the values of art and morality and even religious mysticism
>> are
>> verifiable...".
>>
>>     (LILA, Chapter 8)
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marsha and all,
>>>
>>> I like the phrase "levels in existence" to describe the meaning of
>>> evolution.  Pirsig described DQ as indefinable.  In my experience
>>> emotional
>>> experience fits that description.  The apparatus for knowledge in a
>>> sentient
>>> being includes emotion and intellect.  Instinctive and definitive
>>> characterize DQ/SQ
>>>
>>> Describing the apparatus of emotions interacting with thoughts as DQ/SQ
>>> is
>>> (can you pick a word?)  I am content with Pirsig's indefinable/definable
>>> suggestion.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/1/12 11:15 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do perceptions and the apparatus that shape them interact with
>>>> patterns?
>>>> Do they co-evolve?
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>> 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
>
>
> 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
>