> Platt commented August 30th: > > What Ant tends to ignore in all his quotes from Pirsig and other sources > about the concept of the "individual" as a "convenient fiction" is Pirsig's > own use of the term repeatedly in Lila and other writings as if the concept > was indeed "real," i.e. a high quality value pattern. > > Ant McWatt replies: > > Platt, > > I am well aware of all these examples of the individual you refer to in > LILA and SODV. However, these are all from the world of everyday affairs > (or static) viewpoint of the MOQ (which is the realm SOM is usually limited > to). > > My primary point about the individual (confirmed by Rahula, Cooper, Scott > Peck and Hagen) is that if you want to move on from SOM (and improve the > quality of your life by avoiding dukkha), you have to also recognise the > world of the Buddhas (or Dynamic) viewpoint of the MOQ that states that the > idea of a static, independent self is essentially illusory. Furthermore, > without this Dynamic viewpoint, you start entering a metaphysical mess > (a.k.a. SOM Fairyland) as illustrated in the quote from LILA that Arlo > recently referred to:
To the best of my recollection this is the first time anyone has mentioned that the MOQ has two viewpoints, one static and other Dynamic. If that is so, where in Lila and elsewhere in Pirsig's writings can we pinpoint the difference between the world of "everyday affairs" (the realm of SOM) and the realm of the Dynamic? I always thought the description of leaping off a hot stove was from the world of everyday affairs, as was the story of the brujo and the quotation form Humphrey, "I"ve seen enough of the this." That's why to me the MOQ "viewpoint" took our everyday experience of everyday events and provided a new interpretation whereby instead of experiencing subjects and objects we experience patterns of value and a creative force called Dynamic Quality, and where an "individual," like every other subject or object, really consists of value patterns. To me the breakthrough concept, explicated logically by Pirsig in Lila, is that reality is an evolutionary moral order. So I ask in all sincerity, what am I missing? Is the MOQ based on some experience other than experience of everyday affairs? If so, how come ZMM and Lila are grounded in everyday affairs? Thanks, Ant, for any answer your care to provide Platt 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
