> Platt to Andre: > > Be assured I too don't have the slightest idea if what I say is > ontological, epistemological or philosophical/metaphysical. I'm just the > son of a draftsman. > > Andre: > Platt, thanks for your response. I think that this is the thing I am > questioning: the ontological, epistemological philosophical > /metaphysical > considerations that are going on.
Yes, there's a lot of this going on, most of it to be taken with a grain of salt IMO. > We (through the MoQ) are into a new way of looking/thinking about > things. > > I am reminded of a very good friend I had. He died at my age ,at that > time (42). He developed stomach cancer. He left three children and a > wife. > > He told me of many of his conversations with his brother (very > religious) > quoting the bible etc. And he said one day: 'Andre, I do not want to > hear > those things from the bible, I want to live...NOW, and that is something > my > brother does not understand. He tells me I should do this and I should > do > that...but I do not feel that that is the way to go". I want to be me!' In other words, "I want to live." The business we see put forth in the MD from time to time about self (I) being an illusion I don't buy for a minute. I and life are inseparable, and I don't think life is any illusion. > To have (SOM) philosophical arguments and definitions thrown in to try > and > understand and add to this MoQ ( including religious convictions built > on > uncertainties but confirmed by a QUALITY FOUNDATION) sometimes leaves me > baffled. > The MoQ , through Robert M. Pirsig invites us to go outside of SOM and > and > go deep within ourselves to resolve the S/O concept (SOM), make the > subject > the object and the object the subject. An interrelation between the S > and > the O because both do not exist (their separation are intellectual > constructs/concepts..not reality) Right. Self/Other is an intellectual convenience, not a fact. But, there's a problem: you'll never know what it's like to be kissed by you. In truth, we live in an intellectual paradox -- eternally separate but never apart. > Platt, I think that the reason why I am telling you this is that we have > to > live now. I know we are working on an MoQ but we have to take risks. We > have > to say what we feel and think that is right. > I firmly believe that Mr. Pirsig wanted to re- establish the human > element > within his philosophy. The human element that was lost with Plato and > incarcerated with Aristotle. > > What is good Phaedrus? > > Is 'Good" a concept? Is it a mental construction? For the Buddhist it is > a > way of life. Why do we make it so difficult? ( All this questioning > stuff > generated from SOM and S/O dualities.). > Pirsig simply states that a large part of the MoQ is based on Oriental > mysticism. ( 'On the Road' DVD). > > We Westerners have difficulty with this... Time to let go...of > everything.! > > Is 'good' to be sliced up yet again (through SOM) and do people still > not > accept/understand GOOD as a noun? People do not understand that GOOD is a name for what is right in front of their noses all the time. That's why every living thing avoids death, the loss of GOOD, of experience, of reality. But another paradox we humans have to face is that to continue GOOD -- to live -- we have to divide. Thinking is our tool of survival, and thinking requires we divide our experience into thought burgers. But as always, Andre, these are just my thoughts today. They may change tomorrow. Take what you want and leave the rest. Enjoy the GOOD of the day. Regards, 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/
