Andrè 3 Nov. you wrote:
> 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. I feel like the proverbial Dutch boy running up and down the dyke to put straws in the holes where SOM threatens to flood the little dry MOQ polder. Any "intellectual" pattern deemed non-S/O undermines the MOQ. OK will return to your great post later, right now I'll take a walk in our dismal autumn weather, the worse the better to restore one's peace of mind, these calvary attacks (Horse) drained me completely. See you Bodvar > > 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/ > > 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/
