Hi John, Mary, and all! Thanks for the warm welcome! Well, Mary, I didn't realize how outnumbered we were here. :) :) And in answer to your questions, John: I read Lila about a year after reading Zamm. I would have read it sooner if it were in front of me, but I had trouble tracking it down in the library. I felt frustrated after reading Zamm- like Pirsig didn't get to fully flesh out his ideas on Quality. And I finished Zamm feeling like I had been cheated in a sense. So, my discovery of Lila was wonderful. I feel like I want to get my hands on every interview and dvd about Pirsig. I'm having a hard time keeping up with all these digests, but I did get to read the one where someone made the connection between Native Americans and Asian culture- fascinating! Does that mean that Pirsig sees American culture as a true merging of East and West? Well, my internet access is limited, so I will probably be more of a Lurker on here for now! :-)
BTW- love that song- "do you hear what i hear?" :-) --- On Fri, 1/22/10, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 50, Issue 199 To: [email protected] Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 5:38 AM Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: introducing (John Carl) 2. Re: Metaphysics (markhsmit) 3. Re: Confirming the existence of God? (markhsmit) 4. Re: introducing (Horse) 5. Re: introducing (Mary) 6. Re: introducing (Mary) 7. Re: The difference between a Monet and a finger painting (Krimel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:12:33 -0800 From: John Carl <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] introducing Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 welcome, Elisa, it's always nice to have another female around. You can tell they're rare. For instance, Horse never gave ME no friendly greeting when I joined... It just goes to prove Platt's point about supply and demand economics and all. I'd just like to ask you what it is about Lila that makes you hungry for more? What was your context when reading it and (assuming you read ZAMM first) how long after the "first" book? This is asked on both levels; of friendly social curiousity and normal introduction, and a deeper philosophical level of confirmation of an intuitively sensed good. Like in the song, said the night wind to the little lamb, do you see what I see? John On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Elisa <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > My name is Elisa. I am new to this listserv and just wanted to introduce > myself and let everyone know that I am enjoying the discussions. I just > finished reading 'Lila' and am "hungry" for more and that has landed me > here. Thank you for this listserv... It is high Quality IMHO! :). > > > > 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/ > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:56:54 -0800 From: markhsmit <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" OK John, Gotcha, I misinterpreted your post. ?I got the impression that value can only be sensed from within. Not this, not that does not mean that the intellect cannot grasp what is, because it can in Eastern philosophies. ?It is more like a rejection of SOM. ?You cannot point at it. ?The reason for the double rejection is because such awareness does not come from a logical progression. ?To create a logic such as the intellect can grasp, makes an it out of it (get it, it?) "It hits you like a diamond bullet", as Kurtz's emissary said in Apocalypse Now. Mark Mark, I don't agree, By your perception, or belief, John, Marsha's statement does not work, > as you believe the subjective denies the objective. I would say I believe the subjective is creative and affirmative of the objective, that there is a constructive aspect to the reality "I perceive". This is > similar to Ham's sensibility. Marsha believes in the objective, > that is, what exists both within and outside of our experience. > Well I might be closer to Ham than I realized, sensibility seems close enough to whatever existence is that I could go with it. But I don't read Marsha the way you do here. I'd say rather that Marsha believes in "not this, not that" a devout belief in the inability of any intellectual pattern to capture what is. which is a pretty good point, in itself. But one I reject as a roller coaster existentialist because even though all metaphysical platforms might ultimately be incomplete, I still need SOMEthing to stand on as I wait my turn for the ride. > It is hard to debate when the fundamental tenants start at > different places. I suppose the debate should be who's > starting point has more Quality. A subjective viewpoint > can be argued to be more amoral. However, the objective > view often tries to define morality. > The Quality view starts with the realization of Value - a platform for judging separate from either subject or object and then figures out what works best in the moment. > Did morality exist before man? Is it a fundamental > truth? MoQ would argue that it is. > > I use the word Morality as distinct from Value, that is, morality is what arises from man's apprehension of value - but Man's existence is dependent upon absolute value or Quality, in it's Pirsigian/Roycean terms. > Mark > I still don't quite understand Marsha, > It's a woman's task to always remain somewhat a mystery, and thus instantiate in their very being the mystery of life. Marsha does a good job. John 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/ ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:15:10 -0800 From: markhsmit <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Confirming the existence of God? Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Hi Ant, I see where you are coming from in the responses below. ?Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. ?I'll leave the example of the brain on drugs since such extreme situations don't really help explain. t Reasons for reasons. ?I could ask, why did the cars crash. ?The answer? could be: because they were driving too fast. ?But then I would ask why were they driving too fast? ?Because they were late, then, why were they late, etc, etc. ?This is what I mean, reasons for reasons. ?Now, it is common to think that since you have more reasons, you understand it better. ?But do you? ?Why do the extra reasons make you feel like you understand it better? ?There is no ultimate reason to this question, just a lot of supporting statements. ?So we understand things somewhere? in the middle of a group of reasons, but never fully. So I could ask, what makes the sky blue? ?One answer could be: because of God. ?Full Stop. ?Or one could say because of the way that the light diffracts through the atmosphere, then why does that make? it blue, because.... ?So either way we have to stop somewhere when we are satisfied with the answer. ?In the end, all reasons end up in God, or the unknown, or the divine, you just have to go back far enough. So why not stop at the beginning, and not waste your time compiling reasons? Cheers, Mark Mark Smith stated to Mary on January 17th (in the context of faith regarding God and science respectively):? My argument is this: If I read in a book that God exists, I can accept that on faith. If I read in a book that plate tectonics created the continents as they are, I can accept that on faith. I do not need to personally confirm either. However, the great thing about a belief in God is that it can be confirmed since it is a feeling. Ant McWatt asked January 18th: How do you know this ?feeling? doesn?t instead indicate that you?ve gone insane,? been affected by drugs (legal or otherwise), been hypnotized through social? conditioning, suffered a stroke, been subject to carbon monoxide poisoning or? even some combination of these? Mark replied January 19th: Hi Ant, Those combinations could also be used as a reason for my feelings. Reason is? simply a method by which we feel comfortable with things. Those reasons are? not my choice. Reasons can be extended indefinitely, reasons for reasons.? Why would those things you mention make me feel the way I do? If it is in the? synapses, why would they have that effect? At some point one has to stop.? Perhaps I stop earlier than you would. That only means that I have reached? comfort earlier. Insanity is just a state of mind, like watching a movie is. Ant McWatt replies: Mark, Thank you for your response. There is some good rhetoric there. Firstly, you said: Those combinations could also be used as a reason for my feelings? Those reasons are not my choice. Reasons can be extended indefinitely, reasons for reasons.? I say: Doesn?t the possibility of these other reasons indicate that a belief in God can?t be confirmed by a feeling alone?? Moreover, if these other reasons can be ?extended? indefinitely, shouldn?t that give rise to further caution on your part on what is exactly being confirmed here?? You said: Reason is simply a method by which we feel comfortable with things. I say: Unfortunately, this type of definition doesn?t make me feel comfortable as I think it confuses biological patterns with intellectual patterns. For instance,? taking recreational drugs (or, as happened to Lila towards the end of Pirsig?s? second book, going insane) could also be said to be ?simply a method by which? we feel comfortable with things?!? To clarify things (at least when discussing the MOQ), I think it would be better to? say that reason is (just) an intellectual pattern that improves the quality of our? life by directing it more efficiently. Or a definition more along those lines anyway. You said: Why would those things you mention make me feel the way I do? If it is in the synapses, why would they have that effect?? I say (a bit flippantly): Ask a neurologist. You said: At some point one has to stop. Perhaps I [would] stop earlier than you would. That only means that I have reached comfort earlier. I say: And/or reached self-delusion earlier! You finally said: Insanity is just a state of mind, like watching a movie is. I conclude:? Nice quote. I think Pirsig defines insanity as a set of intellectual and? social patterns in a particular individual thought of as low quality by the? society that they live in. In other words, you can?t ever be insane if you?re the sole occupant on a desert island! .. _________________________________________________________________ We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ 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/ ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:19:38 +0000 From: Horse <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] introducing Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed I do apologise John - (A Belated) Welcome to MD - Hope you have a ball ;) Horse PS Anyone else I missed? John Carl wrote: > You can tell they're rare. For instance, Horse > never gave ME no friendly greeting when I joined... -- Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:27:28 -0600 From: "Mary" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] introducing Message-ID: <002101ca9b23$979893c0$c6c9bb...@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Greetings Elisa! Welcome! Soooo glad to add another female to the group! :) Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:27:28 -0600 From: "Mary" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] introducing Message-ID: <002101ca9b23$979893c0$c6c9bb...@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Greetings Elisa! Welcome! Soooo glad to add another female to the group! :) Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:34:45 -0500 From: "Krimel" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting Message-ID: <858b8b6f4ed1452fb9fa24d9001d0...@littleblue> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" [Krimel] Would you agree that it is unfortunate that the MOQ excludes itself from mainstream evolutionary thinking as a result of Pirsig's lack of contact with say, Gould, Wilson or Dawkins? Ant McWatt commented: No, I?d say it?s unfortunate that mainstream evolutionary thinking has excluded itself from taking on board the MOQ (though, to be fair, I think Dawkins followed this Discussion group for a while in the mid-2000s)!? If the (metaphysical) basics that you rely on are problematic in the first place then the value of your empirical work is going to be reduced accordingly.? LILA would have been a more interesting read if it had included reference to thinkers such as Gould, Wilson and Dawkins but possibly that would have taken out the fun for making these comparisons for yourself. [Krimel] My question was prompted by a quote you posted earlier that included this: "A century and a half after the publication of Origin of Species, evolutionary thinking has expanded beyond the field of biology to include virtually all human-related subjects?anthropology, archeology, psychology, economics, religion, morality, politics, culture, and art.? And yet you claim all those disciplines would be better off embracing teleology and an account the thermodynamics that Pirsig shares with the Institute for Creation Research. Krimel/Case then asked: Doesn't his teleological view and his insistence on a "direction" for evolution cripple progress on the MOQ? ? Ant McWatt commented: By ?progress?, I take it that you mean academic acceptance in the Anglo-American tradition? ?If so, I?d tend to agree with you though I think that?s more down to the blinkered attitudes of these academics who can?t see beyond the creationist/materialist options and, in addition, are usually clueless about Zen (and/or Dynamic Quality).? [Krimel] So you agree with Platt that academia is following blind dogma in rejecting teleology and the doctrines of the Institute for Creation Research? [Ant] Possibly, it comes down to how much weight that you put on the eventual appearance of civilization, the Arts and Sciences in this universe.? [Krimel} Are you still waiting? I suspect you are not alone. [Ant] Explain those just using the laws of physics!? [Krimel] I suppose you could if you wanted to but who would want to do that? It sounds time consuming. [Ant] Personally, I do think they indicate a general progressive direction; a creative impulse if you like but, critically for the MOQ, one that does not require a pre-determined static plan and/or creator.? [Krimel] But a "general progressive direction" does not suggest a "creative impulse" any more that a run of 500 billions heads alters that fact that, on the next toss, the odds are 50/50. Even a general claim that the future will be "better? suggests that it is somehow "pre-determined" to be "better". How much "better"? "Better" for whom? Ant McWatt comments: Mistakes?!!!? There?s mistakes by Pirsig in the Baggini interview?!!!? My guess is that you?re thinking of Pirsig?s comments in LILA concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics but, if not, you better be more specific. [Krimel] Mercifully, Baggini did not push Pirsig on that line of thinking. But feel free to comment on Pirsig's befuddled response in this exchange during an interview conducted via e-mail. Obviously either Baggini was gracious enough not to ask a follow-up question or he was not permitted to. Pirsig's response just reinforces Baggini's need to ask the question in the first place. BAGGINI: One final question about aspects of the MOQ that might help explain academic resistance to it. LILA has a remarkably wide scope and as a result it often deals with, dismisses or solves ideas rather brusquely. For example, at one point you say ?[The theory of evolution] goes into many volumes about how the fittest survive but never once goes into the question of why.? (p144) Most biologists would see that as blatantly untrue, and that furthermore, if you think the question of why the fittest survive hasn't been answered by the theory of evolution, you just haven't understood it. Now it may well be that you have responses to this and can explain why it is you think the question of why the fittest survive hasn't really been addressed. But if you present your thesis in this telescopic, sweeping way, surely you can't complain if informed critics dismiss you. You can't expect them to take it on trust that behind these assertions are more careful, fuller arguments that justify the claims. PIRSIG: That line was an integral part of an entire chapter on the subject and thus cannot be called telescopic. I would answer that biologists who think my question doesn't understand the theory of evolution are biologists who do not understand the difference between ?how? and ?why.? The answers they give for ?why? are usually ?competitive advantage? or ?survival of the fittest.? But if you look closely you will see that these are not scientific terms. ?Fittest? is a subjective term. It exists only in the mind of a scientific observer. It isn't out there in the nature he observes. The same is true of ?advantage.? Ask a biologist who thinks my question doesn't understand the theory of evolution, to define in exact scientific terms the meaning of these evaluative words. If he takes time to do so I predict he will give up or he will come up with nonsense or he will find himself drifting eventually toward the solutions arrived at by the Metaphysics of Quality. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Moq_Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 50, Issue 199 ******************************************** 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/
