[MD] MOQ is good. What is it good for?

[John Carl]

Andre,



On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear MOQ’ers
> Some time ago ( Wed, sept 14) John M said:
> The MOQ isn't a living, dynamic entity.  It is a static intellectual
> pattern.  It was made at a point in time by one person, in the midst of his
> own unique circumstances.  But it doesn't fit mine,…’
>
> Andre:
> This „ it doesn’t fit mine”  keeps on bothering me a bit. We’ve had so
> many people here who eventually left (in frustration may I add) because
> there crept in an anomaly with what they considered to be the MOQ…i.e.what
> Pirsig was talking about and their own experience of the perspective
> furnished by this self same MOQ as devised by Pirsig.
>


Jc:  I don't see how a metaphysics of undefinable Quality can be static.
In fact, I'd say its in the very nature of Value to be dynamic and
evolving.  The MoQ is a sort of metaphysics of evolution and thus it itself
is all about evolving.  How can something that is about evolving toward
betterness, be called "static"?  I guess it could be if it's author chose
that it be static, but that seems a low-quality choice to me!  I agree with
much of John McC, but this part I don't.



>
> We have seen good, well-intentioned people leaving this discussion because
> their experience did not seam well with the MOQ as represented in LILA,
> defended by the likes of Anthony, dmb, Arlo, Ron and Dan. They argued a
> discrepancy between their living of the MOQ (as they experienced it) and
> Pirsig’s deposition thereof in LILA.
>
> LILA is a book…an exposition of the insights of a very special person who,
> as Cat Stevens once poetically said ¨turned the world to order” ( the song
> Jesus on Buddha and the Chocolate Box). And, boy this world needs to be
> turned to order… . It’s a karmic mess…we all know it, see it, feel it and
> when we look honestly we see that the MOQ tells us how. The nice thing of
> course is that it does not give us any definite answers! Thank goodness for
> that. Otherwise we’re be stuck with another dogma.
>
>
Jc:  Exactly.

AB:


> It does give us pointers.
>
> And because Pirsig did ( when you are…and certainly you are) lend
> assistance to a living, sentient being with the ordering of the
> interpretation of our experience he thereby presents us with a clear
> starting point that is ever changing and ever renewed.
>
> It is good to have a solid foundation from which to see, feel, hear and
> argue. This is not dogma…it is realizing that words are simply pointers.
> And it is important to get the words right. And once the words are in place
> they are properly understood…in the context within which they receive their
> fullest meaning and explanatory power.
>
> In the same way that a menu is a pointer to the food it does not and
> cannot be a substitute or a guarantee for the quality of the food that ends
> up on your plate. No matter what the menu says…there is no guarantee that
> it is going to be to your liking… and pay special attention here to the
> word/concept YOUR.
>
> If the food does not agree with you…are you going to blame the menu…the
> waiter, the cook, the butter, the oil, the heat, the oven, the weather…your
> mechanic. your wife, your children, the maid, your bank manager, your pet,
> your tools, the class room, the sun set, the Middle East, the IS, the
> Buddha, Jesus Christ,  Krishnamurti…Pirsig?
>
> I have said it before and will say it again: the MOQ is NOT a personal
> scrip for changing the world. It is a worldly scrip for changing your self.
> It is a signifier dancing (DQ) the conditioned towards…?
>
>
Jc:  How do you change the world? - Change yourself
       How do you change yourself?   - Change the world.

AB:


> It is a sign pointing towards the moon. We can pretend to be responsible
> for the best sexual experiences in the world. We can pretend to be the best
> celebrities in the world with the the highest status and the most money in
> the bank. We can pretend to be the smartest intellectually productive
> thought producers in the world . But that is NOT what it’s about.
>
> Were here to see the moon…that’s all. Realize Rta/dharma. That’s the
> clearest pointer of an idea you can get.
>
> And there is nothing personal in that. As a matter of fact, it has nothing
> to do with ¨mine”  or yours or me or you. Perhaps that is the most
> difficult illusion to overcome.
>
> And it is the oldest idea known to man. (LILA,p 390)
>
>
Sounds good to me.  You may not like the fact, but I agree completely.

John C.