[MD] Zen and theArt of Religion

[T-REXX Techs]

First, I want to express my appreciation to David Buchanan for a helpful and
insightful contribution to the "Metaphor" topic in Issue 5.  Good
scholarship, Dave.

With regard to Message 1 in Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 106, Issue 4:

Andre, you fight like an adolescent girl, snapping and spitting and biting
and scratching.  Go to your room!

Yeah, I know...  JC started it.  He just makes you pompous philosophologists
so mad.  It always gets under your refined skin when a clumsy, stumbling,
sweating hiker comes along on an actual journey.  Yes, he says some dumb
things sometimes.  So do I.  So do you.  But I stand with him.  Although, I
don't always agree with him, I usually find something to chew on in his
posts, and so do some of you.  (Where was MD during JC's absence???  It was
pretty quiet there for a while.)  I find I have learned from him and
benefitted from his insights.  What he and I share is that we both have
"skin in the game".  Philosophy in general, and Pirsig's philosophy in
particular, are vitally important to John and me.  It's of pivotal
significance to our personal trips.  For us, it's not about winning points
in a scholarly debate; it's about wrestling with real issues of living, and
finding better ways of living and thinking that will help us and other
people to live with greater purpose and greater happiness.  We're what
DiSanto and Steele (Guidebook to ZMM) refer to as "journey" philosophers
instead of "map" philosophers.

To that end, I have also found Dan's constructive dialogs with John Carl to
be interesting and beneficial.  Dan and John Carl "get" each other.  They
can grapple and dispute; they can challenge each other, and Dan usually ends
up teaching John (and me) something of value.  But he does so without being
spiteful or insulting about it.  I don't always agree with Dan, but I salute
him for knowing how to carry on a sincere mutual search for something good.
I think Dan must be a "journey" philosopher, too.

John L. McConnell
Home:  407-857-2004
Cell:      321-438-6301
Email:   trexxtechs at bellsouth.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Moq_Discuss [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf
Of moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 3:07 PM
To: moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
Subject: Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 106, Issue 4

Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to
	moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	moq_discuss-owner at lists.moqtalk.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Zen and theArt of Religion (Andre Broersen)
   2. Re: Zen and theArt of Religion (Jan-Anders Andersson)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:13:21 +0200
From: Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Zen and theArt of Religion
Message-ID: <B71A56F9-CC34-419B-B210-D6F537E9B7E5 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

John to Andre:
Your words are absolutely clear, Andre.  I can see right through them.  To
the exact wording that Pirsig used and while I have to give you an "A" for
scholarly accuracy, If that's all there is to your MOQ then I?m afraid
you?ve missed the whole point.

Andre:
You?re right John and I apologize for not recognizing your profound
intellect and ?deep value?  understanding of Pirsig?s MOQ.

John:
All can be seen in a religious context, if you think of religion as it truly
is - the sharing of deep value.

Andre:
Yes John?you?ve opened my mind (or is it heart?)? sharing of ?deep value?.
Gosh, I wished I?d have come up with that one. It is sooooo profound. So
that is REALLY what Pirsig means by the social level. Wow! I mean, I?ve
heard of low value and high value but DEEP value. This really adds to my
understanding of the MOQ. Thank you John, thank you.

John:
You can narrow it down to human society, and it still has wide scope -
football, economics, academic associations, rotary club minutes, etc, etc.
What would you call a single term that encompassed all that territory, if
not of wide scope?

Andre:
Yes John?wide scope. Instead of merely suggesting ?social level? Pirsig
should have said religious level as this would have included everything. But
YOU thought of it John. Fantastic! Your genius has hit on something profound
and put Pirsig to shame!

John:
You've made your point perfectly and I smell your pain. You think the MOQ
experience can be confined to words and exact definitions.  You are sadly
lost, my friend. And I doubt I can help you.  I know the way out of the dark
wood you're in, but you don't like or trust me.  There's not much I can say.

Andre:
Again profound John. Now you think you can master the art of mind reading as
well. I have one word for that: brilliant.

Andre previously:
> A good definition does not narrow the context?it broadens it John.

John:
You've crossed the line to the irrational now.  I got nothing to say to
de-constructive nihilists.

Andre:
?Good is a noun. That was it. That was what Phaedrus had been looking for.
That was the homer, over the fence, that ended the ball game? if you had to
reduce the whole Metaphysics of Quality to a single sentence, that would be
it? . ( The Dakota Indian considers goodness to be a noun rather than an
adjective) (LILA p 418).

John in response to Andre?s just capture the MOQ [ and all is said]:
And here we are, less than 50 years latter, Andre-Buchanan can utter the
same idea, dressed in an "MOQ" blanket, and nobody on this forum but I can
see the great error, the huge mistake that is. 

Andre:
John, you are proving your brilliance once again. Do you feel lonely John? I
mean, you?re intellectual circumference has not been equalled on this site
and, as you mentioned earlier the people you talk with do not comprehend
what you say when talking MOQ so you talk SOM. It must be lonely at the top
John?come on?show some human frailty.

John:
A statement that violates the very heart and spirit of the MoQ, That any
sort of static pattern holds the keys on "all there is to say?. 

Andre:
You are assuming that the word ?capture?  denotes ?all there is to say?.
Actually there is very little to say John but you know that already.

John:
"In the area of Religion, the rational relationship of Quality to the
Godhead needs to be more thoroughly established, and this I hope to do much
later on.?

Andre:
I can?t wait John. Am so looking forward to your brilliant insights. Can?t
you give us a preview?

John:
And I'm sorry to embarrass you so.  Its bound to happen when we all get
thrown together in one group, the idiots and smart-asses in one place. I
can't help it that I uncover your shame.  It's just my nature to be honest.

Andre:
And honesty is a virtue John?and you display it over and over. You are the
smart ass and I am the idiot. You are soooo profound. I love you John.



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 20:21:44 +0200
From: Jan-Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com>
To: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Subject: Re: [MD] Zen and theArt of Religion
Message-ID: <C4B12831-4B1D-49F9-A996-1ED83575A115 at telia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8

Hi there John and Andre

Humour is one of the highest Values, (which maybe explains why dope smokers
got so funny faces:).

But anyone of you still can't hit one of these DEEP values with a stick nor
talk to the stick. Aint that peculiar?

Jan-Anders

> 4 sep 2014 kl. 19:13 Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> John to Andre:
> Your words are absolutely clear, Andre.  I can see right through them.  To
the exact wording that Pirsig used and while I have to give you an "A" for
scholarly accuracy, If that's all there is to your MOQ then I?m afraid
you?ve missed the whole point.
> 
> Andre:
> You?re right John and I apologize for not recognizing your profound
intellect and ?deep value?  understanding of Pirsig?s MOQ.
> 
> John:
> All can be seen in a religious context, if you think of religion as it
truly is - the sharing of deep value.
> 
> Andre:
> Yes John?you?ve opened my mind (or is it heart?)? sharing of ?deep value?.
Gosh, I wished I?d have come up with that one. It is sooooo profound. So
that is REALLY what Pirsig means by the social level. Wow! I mean, I?ve
heard of low value and high value but DEEP value. This really adds to my
understanding of the MOQ. Thank you John, thank you.
> 
> John:
> You can narrow it down to human society, and it still has wide scope -
football, economics, academic associations, rotary club minutes, etc, etc.
What would you call a single term that encompassed all that territory, if
not of wide scope?
> 
> Andre:
> Yes John?wide scope. Instead of merely suggesting ?social level? Pirsig
should have said religious level as this would have included everything. But
YOU thought of it John. Fantastic! Your genius has hit on something profound
and put Pirsig to shame!
> 
> John:
> You've made your point perfectly and I smell your pain. You think the MOQ
experience can be confined to words and exact definitions.  You are sadly
lost, my friend. And I doubt I can help you.  I know the way out of the dark
wood you're in, but you don't like or trust me.  There's not much I can say.
> 
> Andre:
> Again profound John. Now you think you can master the art of mind reading
as well. I have one word for that: brilliant.
> 
> Andre previously:
>> A good definition does not narrow the context?it broadens it John.
> 
> John:
> You've crossed the line to the irrational now.  I got nothing to say to
de-constructive nihilists.
> 
> Andre:
> ?Good is a noun. That was it. That was what Phaedrus had been looking for.
That was the homer, over the fence, that ended the ball game? if you had to
reduce the whole Metaphysics of Quality to a single sentence, that would be
it? . ( The Dakota Indian considers goodness to be a noun rather than an
adjective) (LILA p 418).
> 
> John in response to Andre?s just capture the MOQ [ and all is said]:
> And here we are, less than 50 years latter, Andre-Buchanan can utter the
same idea, dressed in an "MOQ" blanket, and nobody on this forum but I can
see the great error, the huge mistake that is. 
> 
> Andre:
> John, you are proving your brilliance once again. Do you feel lonely John?
I mean, you?re intellectual circumference has not been equalled on this site
and, as you mentioned earlier the people you talk with do not comprehend
what you say when talking MOQ so you talk SOM. It must be lonely at the top
John?come on?show some human frailty.
> 
> John:
> A statement that violates the very heart and spirit of the MoQ, That any
sort of static pattern holds the keys on "all there is to say?. 
> 
> Andre:
> You are assuming that the word ?capture?  denotes ?all there is to say?.
Actually there is very little to say John but you know that already.
> 
> John:
> "In the area of Religion, the rational relationship of Quality to the
Godhead needs to be more thoroughly established, and this I hope to do much
later on.?
> 
> Andre:
> I can?t wait John. Am so looking forward to your brilliant insights. Can?t
you give us a preview?
> 
> John:
> And I'm sorry to embarrass you so.  Its bound to happen when we all get
thrown together in one group, the idiots and smart-asses in one place. I
can't help it that I uncover your shame.  It's just my nature to be honest.
> 
> Andre:
> And honesty is a virtue John?and you display it over and over. You are the
smart ass and I am the idiot. You are soooo profound. I love you John.
> 
> 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


------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Moq_Discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org


------------------------------

End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 106, Issue 4
*******************************************