Hi Platt (and Marsha), Enjoyed your story about Raphael. I don't have a tale of quest. Wish I did. Always was very a-theistic, hardheaded, pragmatic, a real pain in the ass in other words. All I know is I read the books back in the 90's and participated on the Squad for a while, then dropped the whole thing for about 10 years. When I came back a few months ago I started out arguing with Marsha and disagreeing with Bo. I have no epiphany story or anything, but I know it was while reading Marsha's posts, disagreeing, then being unable to counter her replies that I suddenly came to understand things differently than ever before. Don't even know when. Might have been in February, but all at once a door opened. Very strange really. Not something I was looking for especially, but very glad I found it. I could very easily have been the female version of Krimel here instead.
I owe you one, Marsha. Mary > 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 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
