On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Krimel wrote: > > > The biggest problem with the MoQ account of this is the idea of "betterness" > which I would call "harmony". Betterness and harmony are not properties of > DQ or SQ they are properties of the relationship or proportion of SQ to DQ. > In is not a matter of DQ good, SQ bad. It is a matter of the balance of DQ > and SQ. Pirsig plays lip service to this but even a casual stroll through > the archives will reveal that it is Pirsig waxing rhapsodically about DQ > that really catches on. People here seem to think the DQ is "betterness" and > that it is more important than SQ. I think they are wrong on both counts.
Greetings Krimel, I'm a little confused by your term "People here...". I cannot know for sure if you consider me in that group, but I thought I'd make my point-of-view clear. For me, DQ and sq are interdependent, and it is not that one is better than another. It is, though, that individuals and the culture, with only a few exceptions, have most of their focus on spov to the point that they are identified as independent, inherently existing objects (things-in-themselves) in an external world. This is a deeply held misapprehension. If I might emphasize the betterness of an unpatterned experience, it is because such experiences reconfigure ones understanding from a reality of self and objects to one of ever-changing, interconnected processes in which humans are fully integrated. Meditation is a technique that may offer first-hand such a direct re-cognition. Marsha ___ 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/md/archives.html
