Andre, this is a wonderful post!!!!!!! - Marsha
On Jan 15, 2010, at 4:24 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Steve to Andre: > ... can you explain what you did mean by "I don't believe in Quality"? > > Andre: > Hi Steve, I really cannot remember whether I had anwered this or > not..rather hectic here. Anyway, here goes... > I wasn't playing cat and mouse nor word games. My experience of > Quality is as real as my experience of the existence of my computer at > which I work at the moment, or the chair upon which I sit. > > Do I 'believe'. in the existence of my computer? Do I believe in the > existence of the chair. This is a peculiar use of the word 'believe'. > > Do you 'believe' in the sun rise when you see it? > > Did Lao Tzu 'believe' in the Tao? > Did Siddharta Gautama 'believe' in enlightenment? > Did Jesus 'believe' in God the Father? ( supposing Jesus existed and > actually said what he allegedly said). > > Does Pirsig 'believe' in Quality? > > The simple answer of course is no. > > Look at this: > He crosses a lonesome valley, out of the mythos, and emerges as if > from a dream, seeing that his whole consciousness, the mythos, has > been a dream and no one's dream but his own, a dream he must now > sustain of his own efforts. Then even ``he'' disappears and only the > dream of himself remains with himself in it. And the Quality, the > areté he has fought so hard for, has sacrificed for, has never > betrayed, but in all that time has never once understood, now makes > itself clear to him and his soul is at rest. > > At no point does Pirsig state that he 'believes' in Quality. No, he is > absolutely convinced it is here. And, of course even more, it is > fundamental to everything. > > It can be apprehended by direct experience. No belief required. If > belief was required you'd have to take Pirsig's word for its > existence, but you don't. > > This is what I liked about Matt's post the other day. Quality is. It > doesn't belong to Pirsig! > > The static representations thereof, as laid down by Pirsig are general > enough to appeal to anybody and accept or reject as a way of ordering > experience within an evolutionary frame. That is all. > > Pirsig has left the door wide open to find out for ourselves how to > live within the DQ/SQ configuration. Nowhere does he say; "Thou > shall..." and nowhere does he say: 'This is the way it is and this is > its ultimate goal!! > > The static representations are no papal bull. > > It is a biographical metaphysics. Perhaps a cultural biographical > metaphysics as well. It sure is the first metaphysics, or any other > philosophy that I know of, in which its 'subject matter' is allowed a > voice....a part to play. > > The MoQ is a living program in which we are all allowed to play our part. > > No ultimate or absolute goal because this hasn't been played out. > These issues are being played out at the code levels, the 'battle' > zones. The DQ/SQ configuration. > > I'm beginning to rattle on now, sorry. > > For what it is worth. > Andre > > > Cheers > Andre _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
