Bo,Ian,John,Marsha,All, Before continuing with the "Pirsig/James connexion" a few comments on the static/dynamic issue. Yes, RMP first professed his love of the dynamic and often uses it in his examples of higher value, but he is also cautionary of both static and dynamic at the extremes. Simplifying them to a rule of Dynamic=Good/Static=Bad is not only wrong it is dangerous. I seem to recall something about the Middle Way?
>[Marsha in Uncertainty] > You are intellectualizing and up to your eyeballs in objectification. ....... > You might say these non-Western peoples didn't get > totally bogged down in a static, valueless modernity. > Think about this, Buddhism deals with breaking down the belief in an > inherently existing self and objects, and it wasn't developed for Western > peoples. >[Ian] > If we "objectify" the patterns too much - as primary objects - we've > defeated the whole point of MoQ. >[John Carl in Uncertainty] > What did hoboes call the stuff in the big communal > pot? Mulligan stew? Yeah, dish me up some of that. But when slurping the soup dynamic, even the depression era hobos knew to be skeptical when offered "Rainbow Stew" ... "we'll all be drinkn' that sweet bubble-up and eatn' that rainbow stew." When Marsha says, "intellectualizing and up to your eyeballs in objectification." I'm not really sure what she means but I suspect it implies that attempts to stabilize the understanding or interpretation of the MoQ is a static activity and of questionable value. I guess that by extension RMP writing ZMM and Lila, "objectifying" them into books was value-wise a "degenerate activity". Ops, he already said that. He also said something like,"If you don't generalize, you don't do metaphysics." About the use in the West of Oriental religions/philosophies as a panacea for "valueless modernity" I suggest rereading the hippie section of Lila. (303-305 in my HB edition) maybe followed by an extended trip to Laos, Cambodia, or even China to see them in action. And for a view from the other side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book) "Fear and Loathing" of SOM obscures that fact that when it emerged from the dynamic soup it was the very best, highest value pattern around. And the fruits of that tree have been enormous and the unintended negative consequences by comparison much smaller.(But not to be under estimated either) Since I think better graphically over the years I have worked to graphically represent the MoQ. Somewhere I saw? (or maybe I could have made it up) an an adaption of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs diagram to the MoQ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs. Imagine the five levels he shows as four with organic on the bottom and intellect on the top. And the white space under and around it as Dynamic Quality. Draw an arrow pointing up on the left side and label it good, freedom, higher value, dynamism etc. Draw another one on the right point down, label it stability. Organic is the most stable, intellectual the least. And that's a good thing. But both arrows are needed to balance the ying and yang of reality. Dave 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/
