Bodvar: PS. Pirsig had to chastise SOM to promote the MOQ, but afterwards - when the S/O distinction had become its own 4th level (as the SOL says) - to continue this persecution is purposeless. But - alas - stems from making intellect a nondescript neutral mind-like level that has been hijacked by "science and reason".
> I think the main problem I have with the idea that SOM and Reason are > identical is that in order for this to be correct, then Bo's SOL would > be correct and I just don't believe this is the case. And neither does > Pirsig, so I'm in pretty good company. OK, I see your "reason" ;-) Fair enough, but the SOL must be employed for the MOQ to be consistent and have its proclaimed explanatory power. Anyway thanks for raising these questions, they go to the very heart of the MOQ. Andre: Hello Horse, Platt and Bodvar ( christ I am in some company here!...I really feel honoured!)) Allow me to put my two bob's worth of thoughts in here as this has fascinated me even before joining this Discuss. In Pirsig's very real 'concrete' example of the doctor's 'dilemma' in killing the germ or letting the germ kill the person, Pirsig shows us a first and full level improvement of how to employ the MoQ *method* of reason(ing) as opposed to SOM method of reason(ing), anticipating, deflecting, possible (religiously inspired) moral dilemma's e.g. to do with embryo's , right to life, right to death (euthanasia). In this way Pirsig also shows us how his own thinking is developing, as he is developing this MoQ, and checking this way of thinking against 'conventional', SOM thinking. He finds it is absolutely the more superior, correct(er) way of reasoning because it is more inclusive (i.e. of 'other', related bits that have tended to elude SOM reasoning...thereby creating their own little and not so little platypi.) i.e.minimising the 'surprises' , the 'side-effects', the 'unintended consequences' of that method of reasoning. Furthermore he discovers that this method can be applied to all static levels of quality in terms of moral clarification. I was going to put this next part as 'an aside' but isn't this central?, the core? : Isn't this a 'coming home' experience...to hear someone explain it like this? comperable with Pirsig's "peyote experience with the Indians. Extend this further and you'll find for yourself that this method of reasoning/ moralising has always been a part of your patterns, transmitted and made available over an evolutionary period of billions of years, but that it just hasn't been given a moral voice, which now, within the MoQ is 'rationally' defensible and indeed the better way? The MoQ method has every right to attack science on the basis of its reasoning. In this process it restores intellect from a 'non-descript neutral mind-like level that has been hijacked by 'science and reason' to a free, dynamically guiding sage always open to Dynamic Quality. (Because this is how we are born). What I am now getting at is that we do not need the SOL to be employed by the MoQ to be consistent and that it (the MoQ) has its own powerful, explanatory power for those who want to hear, for those who want to see and for those who want to give expression to their DQ inspired feelings. In this sense it is opposed to SOM, thanking it in the process, and rightfully criticising it for its shortcomings. Never throw anything away. Never deny your parents and fellow teachers their rightfull contribution to your own development and existence. For what it is worth. Andre 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/
