Mary, You are much, much, much too generous to mention me. This is never the effort of one. It is strange though, those I fought with the most, are now the ones I feel helped me the most. Krimel? He is a wise and wonderful wizard whose been very generous. Bo, Platt and even our essential Ham have been wise and tolerant. I am grateful to all, EVERYONE, and above all Mr. Pirsig. And you? I owe you for your beautiful, and always insightful posts. I am so delighted you returned to the MD.
Marsha On Aug 8, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Mary wrote: > 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 ___ 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
