[MD] The hrd question

Sun May 27 00:00:01 PDT 2012

Hi Andre,
I would like to comment on your metaphysical arguments below, but
first I need some clarification from what you present.  I am not quite
sure what you mean.

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Marsha's reply:
> Seems to me the quote stated ALL experience.  Are you suggesting that static
> (patterned) value is not experience?
>
> Andre:
> Yes, but it is experienced 'statically' Marsha. It is repeated. Now, I am
> nearly at my wit's end and feel that dmb is getting there as well in terms
> of trying to convey to you that Pirsig's MOQ does NOT HAVE Quality. Rather,
> Quality HAS the MOQ.

Mark:
What do you mean Quality has MOQ?  Are you saying that the concept of
Quality takes on a life of it's own, and then engulfs the very
metaphysics that is creating it?  Are you treating Quality like some
enveloping thing?  I am not quite sure how you see Quality, could you
explain this?
>
> Take the pattern: 'showering'. Now, I'm sure you take a shower (or bath for
> that matter) regularly. I am sure, to use the analogy of the sage saying
> that 'you never step in the same river twice' is a very nice and valid one
> and I am sure that you can argue that your showering or bathing never occurs
> exactly in the same way as before.
>
> But the point is that the pattern 'showering' and the pattern 'bathing' is
> nevertheless used and applicable and very pragmatic in its conventional use.
> Everyone knows what you are talking about when you say: 'I showered today'.
> Is this so difficult? Do you have problems with this  (even taking the MOQ
> perspective? Even the Buddhist perspective? Even a combination thereof?)

Mark,
Andre, I am not sure what the argument you are making here is.
Showering is a word that we use to imply we are taking a shower.
Showering is a manner of speaking, are you saying that the word is a
pattern?  This seems pretty obvious, so perhaps you are saying
something else.  What part of what you present above is the pattern?
Is it the act of taking a shower, or is it the term showering?  Could
you clarify?
>
> It seems you do because  you keep on saying: As Hagen 202 (1997, p.30)
> notes, one of the most fundamental truths noted by the Buddha is that all
> aspects of our experience are in constant flux and change. According to the
> Buddha, when a person ignores this truth they subject themselves to dukkha."
>
> Which is very true and a beautiful insight. But what you fail to accept or
> understand or both is that the MOQ does not deal in 'fundamental truths'.
> That is those 'fundamental truths' you are referring to. The MOQ is a static
> intellectual pattern of quality. That is all. There is no 'fundamental truth
> contained within the MOQ.

Mark:
This is not clear.  dukkha, is a phrase which means unsatisfied.  So
if people expect things to last they become unsatisfied.  But
suggesting that things do not last is not a "truth", it is a manner of
looking at the world.  So far as I can tell, MoQ is also a manner of
looking at the world.  What exactly is different between both, are not
both manners of awareness?  I am aware of noble truths in Buddhism,
but these are noble because they are difficult to follow, and yield
insight.  Does not a comprehension of MoQ also yield insight?

I guess I am confused by what you mean by fundamental truth, as being
something that MoQ does not have.  If Quality is not fundamentally
part of MoQ, then it is no longer MoQ is it?  Is not the inclusion of
Quality a fundamental truth in MoQ?  So far as I can tell, both
Buddhism and MoQ are metaphysics, is this not fundamentally true?
Noble truths are methods for attaining understanding (nirvana) in
Buddhism, are there no methods of understanding in MoQ?  Please
explain what you mean, so that I can grasp what those paragraphs mean.

>
> It has done nothing for the Tao (ZMM). What has benefitted is
> reason/rationality. You fail to understand the distinction. The MOQ, as an
> intellectual pattern of quality is also provisional.

Mark:
What has done nothing for the Tao?  Zen is a mixture of Taoism and
Mahayana Buddhism, as you know.  So are you saying that Buddhism has
done nothing for Taoism?  Is this like saying that Christianity has
done nothing for Islam?  This is very confusing.  All of these
(Taoism, Buddhism, Zen) have reason/rationality in them.  All are
pretty straight forward logically, so if anything they have benefitted
from reason/rationality.  This reason/rationality are tools that we
use.  How can tools benefit?  Please explain, I am not quite sure how
you are using the term reason/rationality.
>
> DQ is a referring term! DQ, and here meaning Quality, is NOT part of the
> MOQ!

I am not sure what you mean by a "referring term".  Could you say that
another way?  All words are referring terms so far as I can tell.
What is different about the word(s) DQ?  I also do not know what you
mean that DQ (or I guess Quality?) is not a part of MoQ.  This does
not make sense, what does the "Q" stand for in MoQ then?
>
> Your definition of static patterns of quality, your five sentence definition
> does exactly what Pirsig abhorred in Plato: you are trying to incorporate
> DQ, you are trying to encapsulate it. You probably do not mean to, but you
> do. And in the process you make an incredible mess of things as a result.

Mark:
I am not quite sure what you mean.  If Pirsig abhorred sentences that
describe, what do you call those sentences in Lila?  Does he not
describe Quality by dividing it in two?  I do not think that this is
what Pirsig abhorred in Plato, so I would appreciate it if you could
point out where he says that.  Perhaps I am wrong, but it does not
seem that Marsha is trying to encapsulate Quality.  She understands as
do the rest of us, that we use words to exchange ideas, not to
encapsulate.  Why do you say that she is encapsulating?  Perhaps I
missed something she said.
>
> As dmb and myself keep on saying, you create this word salad thing of a
> definition because you are conflating the two basic premises of the MOQ as
> though they are the premises of experience itself! In other words you still
> confuse (as Bodvar did) the MOQ with Experience (DQ).

Mark:
Could you clarify this paragraph?  What two things are the premise of
experience?  I have no idea what is being confused here.  Are you
saying that Marsha thinks that the MoQ is DQ?  Are you referring to
what has been written about MoQ as a metaphysics or are you talking
about an appreciation of the world through MoQ?  One would seem to be
static and the other dynamic, one can be written on a piece of paper,
the other is simply indefinable awareness.  Perhaps you could put this
statement another way.
>
> Given your line of reasoning Marsha: why did Pirsig even bother to write
> LILA? Could it possibly be the case that Pirsig is aware of the ignorance of
> this truth among many, therefore being subjected to dukkha, and having lead
> to this incredible moral rustbelt which is called the twentieth century.

Mark:
Ignorance of what truth?  The feeling of dukkha is when the
individual's present understanding is insufficient.  It is the feeling
that something is missing, making life unsatisfying.  It can said to
come from certain expectations from life that are misplaced, leading
to "suffering" from lack of fulfillment.  So, what are you saying
about Pirsig in this regard?
>
> If all is 'in constant flux and change' as you maintain, why did Pirsig
> bother? Why did he write LILA? Why, oh why (and I have asked you this
> before) did Gautama Buddha get up from under the bodhi tree? Why didn't he
> just remain there?

Mark:
Are you saying that if Marsha states that everything changes, that
Pirsig should not have written Lila because it would change?  Or that
he should not have written it because it would improve through
dialogue?

As you well know, Buddha had the choice to stay under the bodhi tree.
This is the hardest choice to make when one reaches enlightenment.
Not everybody returns to help like Buddha did.  Also as you know,
Buddha claimed that he would not be done until all people stopped
suffering.  This was his choice.  Are you asking why Buddha made this
choice?  This can be found in the literature.
>
> Do you go out of your door sometimes? Do you follow the social, economic,
> environmental and intellectual events at all?
>
> We live in the conventional world Marsha, NOT in the world of the
> Buddhas.(and don't wank me by saying that we really do but do not realize
> it...that would be really off)

Mark:
What do you mean by the world of Buddhas?  The world that Buddha lived
in was pretty similar to this one.  Are you using this phrase as some
kind of "utopia".  Once Buddha realized nirvana, nothing in the world
changed, only his attitude.  This is what he was teaching.  So if
Marsha says that "we do not realize it" it would seem that she means
that the world is not going to change, only our perception of it will.
 This would be the process of realization.  What exactly is "off"
about that.  This is what Buddhism is all about.  It is about personal
liberation.  The world does not change one bit.  Perhaps you mean
something else though.  Please explain.
>
> We do NOT live in the world of the Buddhas. A metaphysics oriented on the
> world of the Buddhas, as you maintain, plead for, fight for and stubbornly
> defend makes no sense within a metaphysics meant to improve this world a
> little. Something people can work with...take in their head into their heart
> and translate through their hands.

Mark"
Why do you say we do not live in the world of the Buddhas?  What kind
of world is that?  Please give us an example of this world so that we
can understand what you mean.  Buddha tried to help one person at a
time.  He did not even expect his teachings to last for very long,
because they were so hard to teach.  I do not think his plans were any
grander than Pirsig's.  Buddha taught people to think for themselves,
I think that is what Pirsig wants too.  I think you may be too hard on
Pirsig here, but, most probably I do not know what you mean.
>
> The last thing anybody wants to have nowadays is a polemic on how their
> showering was fundamentally different from their showering yesterday...given
> that one had the chance to even enjoy one!

I most certainly agree with that.
>
> I just want to finish off with a general question to those contributing to
> the MOQ in any sensible way: does Marsha's presentation (and therefore
> perspective) on Pirsig's MOQ help or hinder or flobberdiblobs our
> understanding of the MOQ?
> Are you finding it a great nuisance that I keep on sitting on her back
> trying to correct her? In other words; is my correction justified and of
> value for the MOQ or should I not bother?

I think it is great that you engage in a conversation with Marsha.  I
do not understand your corrections, but I am sure they are well meant.
 As you probably know, Marsha enjoys such dialogue as well, and you
are probably not going to change her mind.  But that is not the point
anyway, is it?  All I would suggest is that you try to be a little
more rigorous with the metaphysical arguments you are making.  It
usually starts with a proposition followed by support of such
proposition through argument, or even proof.  I think if we understand
what you are saying, we can respond with a counter argument or with
agreement.  But, it is difficult to understand what point you are
trying to make.  Sometimes a post in philosophy forums takes several
rewrites before it is sent.  I am not sure how much time you spent
putting this post together, but I suggest spending maybe a little
more.
>
Practice makes perfect.

Best regards,
Mark
>
>
>
> 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