Hi Mary, We seem to wear the same set of spectacles. In the opinion of some, this makes us crazy. Pirsig was prescient in predicting how we would be viewed by those who are stuck with SOM spectacles:
"The same is true of subjects and objects. The culture in which we live hands us a set of intellectual glasses to interpret experience with, and the concept of the primacy of subjects and objects is built right into these glasses. If someone sees things through a somewhat different set of gasses or, God help him, takes his glasses off, the natural tendency of those who still have their glasses on is to regard his statements as somewhat weird, if not actually crazy." (Lila, 8) Long ago while still in college I began to question the validity of the rational SOM world view. Professors in different disciplines appealed to reason to justify their beliefs, yet all their world views were different. The art professor saw a Raphael painting as an historic relic. The science professor saw the painting as a neurological consequence of the impact of vibrations on the eye. The literary professor saw the painting as justifying religious oppression. I saw the painting and realized that reason was helpless to explain the painting's initial impact on me. Indeed it became obvious to me that reason alone could not at first glance distinguish between a Raphael and a finger painting. Something else had a vital role in forming direct experience. Thus began my life long search for a better understanding than the Church of Reason alone could provide. Further evidence of reason's limitations came from the insights of physicist Paul Davies: "But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible. We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation , by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek an explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation." (The Mind of God, p. 231) In other words, embrace a new set of spectacles. So I tried the MOQ pair, and just as the song says about another kind of illumination, "I was blind, but now I see." Platt On 8 Aug 2010 at 6:41, Mary wrote: Hi Platt, > Hi Mary, > > Right you are. Pirsig agrees. The MOQ uses SOM intellect "to make > itself > known," but the "central reality of the MOQ is not an object or subject > or > anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not by > reasoning > of any kind." SOM intellect "doesn't tell us anything about the essence > of the > MOQ." (LS,132) > > Thus, quagmires like recursion that spring from the limitations of SOM > are > irrelevant to understanding the MOQ. Rather, the essence of the MOQ is > apprehended this way: > > "Like the empty sky it has no boundaries > Yet it is right here ever serene and clear. > When you seek to attain it, you cannot see it. > You cannot take hold of it. > But neither can you lose it. > > -- Yung-chia > What you say here and quote here is very lovely. It is true that recursion is a problem if you are trying to shoehorn Value, Morals, and Quality into concepts, but as you say, all this dissolves when we see the _inadequacy_ of the intellect to comprehend. Best, Mary 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 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
