Greetings Bo, It's a beautifully written post!
From my heart, or whatever,,, to force the MOQ out of the Intellectual Level and into a level of its own would be to put the unknown ((DQ (Quality) into a system. Within a system it would be at the mercy of every form of butchery. As it is, many, myself included, have tried to kill it. But of course this may just be a symptom of my own inadequacy. I would like to hear how others think. Marsha At 03:31 PM 11/29/2007, you wrote: >Hi Marsha (attention Akshay and Khoo) > >28 Nov. you wrote: > > > At 01:39 AM 11/28/2007, Bo wrote: > > > >Another thing is that P himself went and undermined the MOQ by > > >turning idealist himself, but that's another story. > > > Greetings Bo, > > > You've eluded to this many times. Why don't you tell this part of the > > story? You may be wrong, but heroic. > >Well, let me have a go at the said issue. Early in LILA Pirsig >speaks about metaphysics-writing. > > It was fascinating to watch this thing grow. No one that > he knew had ever written a whole metaphysics before and > there were no rules for doing it and no way of predicting > how it would progress. (Page 16 digital LILA) > >And this is just right. No one has ever written a metaphysics in >the MOQ sense. > > But even then the assertion that metaphysics is > meaningless sounded false to him. As long as you're > inside a logical, coherent universe of thought you can't > escape metaphysics. > >This is also correct, meaning that no human being is/can be >outside a "metaphysics". The most remote tribes will have >explanations of reality, we call these mythologies, but are >metaphysics in this all-embracing sense. > >When an anthropologist studies "primitive" metaphysics he is at a >higher metaphysical ground relative to these, namely the SOM >(intellect in our book) that has risen above these (social level in >our book). Till now Pirsig had been spot on, but then he suddenly >deviated and turned "mystics". > > To define something is to subordinate it to a tangle of > intellectual relationships. > >Here the notion of metaphysics as "intellect", i.e. that any >"explanation of experience" is intellect emerges, and the ensuing >trouble starts. > > And when you do that you destroy real understanding. > The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phædrus > had called "Quality" in his first book, is not a metaphysical > chess piece. Quality doesn't have to be defined. You > understand it without definition, ahead of definition. > >This is not right. Understanding - real or not - requires a context, >a system. Even a grand epiphany isn't much until it is made into >a system and conveyed to other. > > Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to > intellectual abstractions. Quality is indivisible, undefinable > and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a > known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A > metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, > or there isn't any metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is > essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since > Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a > "Metaphysics of Quality" is essentially a contradiction in > terms, a logical absurdity. > >Regardless how much he wants to keep Quality outside >everything it is part and parcel of the MOQ, and - heck - Quality >can be inside the MOQ and still outside definition. Anyway, by >this he shifted from the initial notion of metaphysics as a totality >to the Aristotelian type of an ineffable reality that metaphysics are >more or less correct maps of. > >Aristotle is SOM so you see the connection: The ineffable reality >is the real OBJECTIVE part while a metaphysics is the >SUBJECTIVE theory. Thus "Quality as Reality" and MOQ as a >mere theory is SOM in a thin Quality guise. > >The true MOQ looks like thisis this: > >DYNAMIC QUALITY/STATIC QUALITY. > >My guess is that "mysticism" is a SOM (Western) name for the >Eastern metaphysics and that the Orientals don't regard >themselves to be mystics. I hope Akshay Peshwe (the hindu) >would put in a word here, that goes for Khoo Hock Aun too who I >believe is a Buddhist. > >Bo > > > > > >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/ 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/
