Hello everyone On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:48 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Dan (previously): > > I think Mr. Pirsig tells Anthony McWatt that LILA was originally > conceived as a case study of what is known as Joshu's koan: A monk > asks: "Does a dog have Buddha nature, or not?" Chao-chou replied: "He > does not." Yet according to Buddhist teachings, everything has Buddha > nature. Over the centuries, many scholars have debated why, if all > insentient and sentient beings have Buddha nature, a dog would not. It > is the same with LILA. When confronted by Rigel on whether Lila > Blewitt has quality, Phaedrus automatically says: Yes! So in a sense, > he is contradicting the given answer to the koan. > If you say yes, you are damned. If you say no, then the Buddhist > belief that everything has Buddha nature is wrong. So throughout LILA, > Phaedrus argues one way and then another. Yes, Lila has quality. No, > quality has Lila. And this is the great insight that Mr. Pirsig > offers, which basically turns the koan on its head and shocks us into > seeing quality in a different light. > > Mark (in humble response): > I think you are mistaken. Buddhist teachings do not say that everything has > Buddha nature. The accepted answer to the question above is "woof". So if > this is what Pirsig is basing his book on, it is misleading. When Phaedrus > says "yes", he is not contradicting anything, he is ascribing value. Buddha > himself would not say he has Buddha nature, since such a thing does not > exist in and of itself. Perhaps Phaedrus is assigning inherent existence, > as Quality, to Lila, but I do not think so. He is personifying Quality as > it exists within and is displayed without. This then leads to an > understanding of Quality, as described through narrative, as something > expressive not passive.
Hi Mark Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. > > I find this superficial attachment of philosophies to ascribe validity to > Quality to be insufficient. Of course what you state is an opinion; > however, interpreting the opinion of another as fact is not productive. I > understand the need for historical perspective to provide understanding, but > what you provide is a broken chain. The connections with Tao or Buddhism > are tenuous and not well thought out. Zen is an art just like motorcycle > maintenance. There are many similarities which help understand the basis of > each. Buddha nature is a Quality. It is used as an adjective to describe, > not to encompass. It is quite possible (in my opinion) to express Quality > without containing it. Dan: You are obviously much more intelligent than I. We have nothing to discuss. Thank you Dan > > Cheers, > Mark > > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello everyone >> >> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > ADRIE KINTZIGER aan moq_discuss >> > details weergeven 10:22 (8 uren geleden) >> > >> > Thanks for sharing this one, Dan, so true,----"Dan: >> > >> > This discussion is centered around the MOQ. I write stories myself and >> > share them from time to time with the group but it is my hope that >> > others may see the value there and how it pertains to the MOQ. I am >> > not an autobiographer. And I realize someone reading my stories may >> > not understand that, just as someone reading Robert Pirsig's writings >> > may take a lot of what he writes as truth. I recall Mary getting upset >> > that he would have an affair with a bar lady while he was still >> > married. And yet he told me himself that he was Lila, and the boat, >> > and the rest of the story as well. That's what I am driving at. You >> > are the story. How does your life pertain the MOQ. You. Not the >> > people or places in your life. Do you see what I mean? I know I am >> > explaining myself poorly but it is a difficult subject." >> > >> > >> > What a pearl,what a force, "you are the story" >> > Yes! perfect. >> > thanks >> > >> > 2010/10/16 Dan Glover <[email protected]> >> > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijke bericht weergeven - >> > >> > >> > >> > Coming back for now, this moment , having some more spare time and needed >> to >> > read back the conversations, i came to >> > think of it as this, .. >> > "LILA" is a mirrorimage of ourselves, if we are reading LILA, we are >> looking >> > into the mirror, asking ourselves, do we have >> > quality,? Do i have quality?, so the question is not ' does lila...etc, >> 'no, >> > the question is , do we have...etc. >> > And in this optic, Pirsig and his LILA are teaching quality, dhyana, >> dynamic >> > quality,...by not teaching it at all, the teaching >> > is the part in the mirror, look at yourself to find the answer on the >> > projected question. >> > The mirror is reflecting every one of us, every proces, every value, to >> be >> > examined by ourselves,about ourselves. >> > So he is teaching quality after all, nothing else,by not teaching >> quality, >> > but Virtue, to examine ourselves,...making this our goal. >> >> Hi Adrie >> >> Yes that is a great way of looking at LILA. It is the more difficult >> of Robert Pirsig's 2 books which is why I think this discussion group >> is still going strong after some 13 years. There are so many levels >> within the story and of course a metaphysics must contain everything >> in order to do what it's meant. >> >> > >> > The mirror is showing all our patterns, the value's, the preferences.So >> we >> > can answer the question, does LILA has quality,... >> >> Dan: >> >> I think Mr. Pirsig tells Anthony McWatt that LILA was originally >> conceived as a case study of what is known as Joshu's koan: A monk >> asks: "Does a dog have Buddha nature, or not?" Chao-chou replied: "He >> does not." Yet according to Buddhist teachings, everything has Buddha >> nature. Over the centuries, many scholars have debated why, if all >> insentient and sentient beings have Buddha nature, a dog would not. It >> is the same with LILA. When confronted by Rigel on whether Lila >> Blewitt has quality, Phaedrus automatically says: Yes! So in a sense, >> he is contradicting the given answer to the koan. >> If you say yes, you are damned. If you say no, then the Buddhist >> belief that everything has Buddha nature is wrong. So throughout LILA, >> Phaedrus argues one way and then another. Yes, Lila has quality. No, >> quality has Lila. And this is the great insight that Mr. Pirsig >> offers, which basically turns the koan on its head and shocks us into >> seeing quality in a different light. >> >> >> > >> > The answer was always there, "we" have quality, "we" have patterns of >> value, >> > "we" are the patterns, the value's, the rocks >> > the water, the ocean's ,the air, we are Dhyana, virtue and value, zen and >> > science at the same time. >> >> Dan: >> The answer is there, yes. We don't have value. Value has us! >> >> > >> > So , in reflection of the letter you presented , Dan, I think my opinion >> is >> > about this. >> > At least some aspects of quality can be teached, framed, captioned, by >> > teaching people to ask the right questions,writinr> the secrets of the >> words, unrevealing their quality, embedded within the >> > question to project at ourselves. >> > But of course, not all aspects of quality can be halted to study, or to >> > study ourselves, its impossible to hold the ocean >> > in the palm of your hand.....or the moon, or gravity, nor they , (the >> > patterns) can be ignored, no matter how hard you ignore the ocean, >> > gravity, or quality, it will not leave,it cannot leave. It can never >> leave >> > us. >> >> Dan: >> Exactly! The Eastern way is to go inward. The Western way is to go >> outward. By marrying the two, the MOQ expands on both the >> irrationality of the East and the rationality of the West. >> >> > >> > >> > To make some reflections on your considerations about LILA'S CHILD, and >> the >> > work you performed on the material that was avaliable >> > -Have to say this, The work, the importance, the biggest importance for >> me >> > is that you did it without contaminating the material, >> > without trailering along with it to induce a widget of your own, a niche, >> a >> > product or a remark, You left everything in its value's >> > At the same time, you studied the availiable material so intensively, >> that >> > you became one with the value's, the projected and embedded virtue...., >> yes >> > , the light my literary friend, you became aware of the light, the light >> of >> > EL GRECO in the painting, he did not need to paint it after all. >> > He expirienced it. >> > He was one with it, as Pirsig is writing.---stunning beauty, framed >> forever. >> > It was there all the time. >> >> Dan: >> Well, in a sense I couldn't do the work without contaminating it. I am >> not sure that I understood that at the time. The founder of the Lila >> Squad became quite furious with me at the time and refused permission >> to use her work. Over the years, I see better now what she was saying >> at the time, even though I still don't agree with her. I think >> Marsha's objection to LILA'S CHILD has merit as well, though again, I >> am not sure how to overcome such a quandary. It is what it is. >> >> > >> > >> > >> > So yes , the letter you shared is of importance, at least some aspects of >> > quality can be teached , by looking into the mirror. >> > Thank for your appearances , Dan. >> >> Dan: >> You are welcome, Adrie. And thank you too. It is always a pleasure to >> read your posts. >> >> Dan >> >> > >> > greetzz, Adrie >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2010/10/16 ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> >> > >> >> Thanks for sharing this one, Dan, so true,----"Dan: >> >> >> >> This discussion is centered around the MOQ. I write stories myself and >> >> share them from time to time with the group but it is my hope that >> >> others may see the value there and how it pertains to the MOQ. I am >> >> not an autobiographer. And I realize someone reading my stories may >> >> not understand that, just as someone reading Robert Pirsig's writings >> >> may take a lot of what he writes as truth. I recall Mary getting upset >> >> that he would have an affair with a bar lady while he was still >> >> married. And yet he told me himself that he was Lila, and the boat, >> >> and the rest of the story as well. That's what I am driving at. You >> >> are the story. How does your life pertain the MOQ. You. Not the >> >> people or places in your life. Do you see what I mean? I know I am >> >> explaining myself poorly but it is a difficult subject." >> >> >> >> >> >> What a pearl,what a force, "you are the story" >> >> Yes! perfect. >> >> thanks >> >> >> >> 2010/10/16 Dan Glover <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Hello everyone >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:38 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> > Hello Everyone, >> >>> > >> >>> > Dan: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Quite possible. But if your style is being a clown, then we have >> very >> >>> >> little to discuss. I tend to suffer fools poorly... that's my style. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Understood. I've been certainly told many times in my life, "we have >> >>> very >> >>> > little to discuss" and I've believed it every time. Takes two to >> tango >> >>> and >> >>> > some people aren't comfortable with my steps, rhythm or style. No >> >>> problem. >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> I enjoy humor so don't get me wrong... but there's a difference >> >>> between being humorous and being a clown. I enjoy our discussions very >> >>> much. Yet there are times when we have to peel back the onion (so to >> >>> speak) to get at a deeper meaning to the MOQ. And I tend to get the >> >>> impression that you're not so much interested in doing that as you >> >>> are... how do I put it... falling back to your own insights rather >> >>> than focusing on the discussion at hand. And I know we've been over >> >>> this before and it didn't go so well. I don't mean to say that I don't >> >>> want your insights. But I would prefer that you presented them in >> >>> terms common to the MOQ. That way the discussion could move forward. >> >>> Sometimes I get the impression that you are looking to one-up Robert >> >>> Pirsig rather than understand what he is saying. And of course he can >> >>> be wrong. But still, it seems better to develop an understanding of >> >>> the MOQ first, which I cannot see that you have done. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> Dan: >> >>> >> No candles needed but a bit of reverence doesn't hurt. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > I take everything seriously, nothing is sacred; I take nothing >> >>> seriously, >> >>> > everything is sacred. Trite, but true. >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> That's fine. But it's also only so much b.s. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> Climbing the mountain is tough enough. >> >>> >> > Bearing great burdens will not help me climb. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Dan: >> >>> >> I guess that is where we differ. If as you say you're taking a >> serious >> >>> >> risk, then it seems to me it might behoove you to take thngs a bit >> >>> >> more seriously. Write like it's the last thing you will ever do, for >> >>> >> it just might be. Anything less is just cheating yourself, in my >> >>> >> opinion, of course. >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > I appreciate your sharing your opinion, Dan. Always. Although, if >> as >> >>> you >> >>> > say, "we have little to discuss" because you don't like my style, >> it's >> >>> hard >> >>> > to figure out how any constructive criticism about my style can >> occur. >> >>> For >> >>> > constructive criticism you need an open mind, right? >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> Well, you are the one who clowns around. I don't care for that. So >> >>> yes, the discussion won't go far. I don't mean to criticize you one >> >>> way or the other. I only offer a possible solution to the impasse that >> >>> we seem to come to time and again. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > And I still don't quite get how anything like I've done, written, >> >>> > communicated, expressed - could be construed as anything BUT serious >> >>> when >> >>> > I'm carving out part of my life, from a whole list of obligations and >> >>> > committments, to empty myself of everything but devotion to this one >> >>> task. >> >>> > If that's not serious, then I have no idea what you mean by the term. >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> This discussion is centered around the MOQ. I write stories myself and >> >>> share them from time to time with the group but it is my hope that >> >>> others may see the value there and how it pertains to the MOQ. I am >> >>> not an autobiographer. And I realize someone reading my stories may >> >>> not understand that, just as someone reading Robert Pirsig's writings >> >>> may take a lot of what he writes as truth. I recall Mary getting upset >> >>> that he would have an affair with a bar lady while he was still >> >>> married. And yet he told me himself that he was Lila, and the boat, >> >>> and the rest of the story as well. That's what I am driving at. You >> >>> are the story. How does your life pertain the MOQ. You. Not the >> >>> people or places in your life. Do you see what I mean? I know I am >> >>> explaining myself poorly but it is a difficult subject. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > On the other hand, if you mean by irreverential, and you're talking >> >>> about my >> >>> > attitude toward holy bob, or whatever, then... got an askance glance >> at >> >>> you >> >>> > out of the corner of my eye, a sad shaking of the head and a slow >> >>> saunter >> >>> > away. I got my standards too, and neither do I suffer fools or >> >>> foolishness >> >>> > without comment. >> >>> > >> >>> > Well, sometimes I do. When it seems like a good idea. >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> >> >>> I don't believe in hero-worship. Still, I don't believe it is right to >> >>> disrespect people either. But that's just me. It is how my father >> >>> raised me. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > Dan: >> >>> >> Phaedrus cared enough to take a holy journey but he didn't care >> enough >> >>> >> to realize what it was he was undertaking. That is my point, for >> what >> >>> >> it's worth. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > I'm not so sure I completely agree with you (and him). I mean, I >> know >> >>> it >> >>> > sounds silly to argue with the guy's own words on paper, but there >> are >> >>> > shortcut intellectualizations of deeper meanings that we can't or >> don't >> >>> have >> >>> > time to express, in all we do. And giving up on the mountain has >> many, >> >>> many >> >>> > roots in the decision process. For instance, some people spend their >> >>> whole >> >>> > lives dwelling in the alluvial plains and save up all their rupees >> for >> >>> just >> >>> > once an opportunity to look down on their own existence. they value >> >>> > climbing the mountain in one way. >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> >> >>> I am not sure what you mean by 'shortcut intellectualizations of >> >>> deeper meanings.' But let me try and tell you where I am coming from >> >>> and why I quoted that bit from ZMM on holiness. Take my work on LILA'S >> >>> CHILD as an example. Despite Marsha's sarcasm, I don't think anyone >> >>> who has not been through such an experience can appreciate the deeper >> >>> meaning of setting a goal so high that it is impossible to acheive and >> >>> then going ahead and acheiving it. Like Phaedrus and his holy quest... >> >>> he looked at it as an opportunity for personal growth and experience. >> >>> But that's not what it is about. The holy quest is about giving >> >>> oneself up entirely to something you neither understand nor know the >> >>> outcome. It is like Carlos Castenada jumping into the abyss so dark >> >>> and deep, having to gather the totality of himself without even >> >>> knowing what that is, and just letting go. >> >>> >> >>> There are no shortcuts to such an experience and one never knows when >> >>> such an opportunity will arise. Thinking about it only takes one >> >>> further away, not closer. So we seem to disagree on a very fundamental >> >>> level when it comes it holiness, which a person find a bit surprising >> >>> knowing you are the more religious of the two of us. But the holiness >> >>> that I speak of has nothing to do with religion. Perhaps it is like >> >>> reading about zen and practicing zen... something along those lines. >> >>> It seems many contributors here are well-read when it comes to Eastern >> >>> philosophy but few actually put that knowledge into practice. Zen >> >>> isn't something a person can read about. It just isn't. I don't care >> >>> how many books a person reads, they will never know about zen in an >> >>> intellectual way. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > But to an old cowboy from the continental divide? Maybe not so much. >> >>> > Maybe, been there, done that, know what the view is from the top. A >> lot >> >>> of >> >>> > small ponderings go into any question of why we value or choose what >> we >> >>> do. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > And for Phaerus in that time, the feeling of dislocation, the >> differing >> >>> > social and cultural supports produce a depressive state - the >> opposite >> >>> of >> >>> > "the home team advantage" and you sudden just don't care about >> climbing >> >>> > anymore. Heck, happens to all of us. >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> Now see, you don't get it. It wasn't that he didn't care. He did. He >> >>> just didn't care in the right way. That kind of caring isn't something >> >>> one thinks about. One feels it deep down, as if life itself depended >> >>> on it. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > And some people stop climbing, because the same value to be found at >> >>> the >> >>> > top of the mountain, can be found in the heart of the moment - no >> effort >> >>> > needed. So why climb? >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> That I cannot answer for you. You have to answer that for yourself. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > What I'm saying is, there are lots of ways of "caring" that mattered >> >>> more >> >>> > than the many anonymous pilgrimages that have gone on for centuries >> and >> >>> made >> >>> > it back to the bottom, and died, and never wrote anything. Caring >> >>> enough to >> >>> > take a holy journey, means you don't always know in advance where >> it's >> >>> gonna >> >>> > end, or what detours its gonna take. That is my point, for what it >> is >> >>> > worth. >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> Life is a holy journey. That is what the pilgrimages are all about. No >> >>> one has to write about it or think about it or be told about it. And >> >>> of course no one knows what is going to happen in advance. That is our >> >>> Western way. The sun rises every day. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> Dan: >> >>> >> Maybe we are speaking past one another. In the quote above, there >> are >> >>> >> 4 'I's' and 2 'me's' so I suspect your hero is ego-climbing too. But >> >>> >> who knows? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Hmmm... ego climbing. There is a sense in which "ego-climbing" could >> be >> >>> > said to be whole enchilada. The evolution of consciousness from and >> >>> into >> >>> > the cosmos, assimilating patterns infinitely - an expanding self, the >> >>> ego- >> >>> > climbing to allness of being. >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> No. Ego-climbing is personal gain. It is me, me, me. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > Yeah, I can see how that could be a good thing. But what comes with >> the >> >>> > connotation is social competition - like I'm higher than you so >> neener, >> >>> > neener, neener. I'm more selfless than you are. Sometimes, what is >> >>> there >> >>> > to do but laugh? >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> Exactly. But one doesn't have to tell anyone anything when it comes to >> >>> reverence. That is beyond social and intellectual values into Dynamic >> >>> realms. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > I'd prefer to think of our endeavors as a good thing. An evolving >> >>> > understanding of ourselves and our world, where our ego-climb is also >> >>> > boosting those around us. Not stomping on heads or fingers, but just >> >>> like >> >>> > real serious mountain climbing - roping and pitons and belays and >> >>> teamwork. >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> As I said, there ain't no school and no one is giving out any grades. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > But hey, that's me, mr. idealist. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> Dan: >> >>> >> No. As he states, he is being logically foolish. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > I think he's being logically rigorous about the way logic is a >> >>> foolishness >> >>> > that magically produces meaning, like a rabbit from a hat. But >> >>> admittedly, >> >>> > my background is different, having read a great deal of him. But it >> >>> comes >> >>> > in handy as a logical defense of foolishness, which I seriously >> thought >> >>> I >> >>> > might need but it's hard to say where this is going. >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> I would have to read more than just a few quotes, of course, and that >> >>> type of reading doesn't interest me at all. I'd never get through it >> >>> though. I am not a philosopher nor do I read it... unless I have >> >>> trouble sleeping, then it helps lull me. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > Of course I am not sure... it was merely an observation. No need to >> >>> >> fall on your knife or anything. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Well I'm pretty sure its not going there! >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Dan: >> >>> >> Coyote the trickster often ends up tricking only himself, or so I >> >>> >> understand. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > dude, you nailed it. so many times and in oh so many different >> ways... >> >>> but >> >>> > as long as it makes a good story, it's all worth it. Chuckle and you >> >>> rhyme >> >>> > with the cosmic joke. >> >>> >> >>> Dan: >> >>> >> >>> Well, sure. In a certain context, I agree. But the story has to have >> >>> some value, some meaning. Otherwise it is just so much clowning around >> >>> and the joke is on you... in my opinion, of course, >> >>> >> >>> Thank you, >> >>> >> >>> Dan >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > 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/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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> parser >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > parser >> > 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
