But MoQ isn't primary experience, it's a concept based upon primary experience as is also the Cartesian dichotomy. I think Pirsig let Phaedrus say in both Zen and Lila that he didn't really want to infer any concepts from that: but that wouldn't solve the problem he had set out to solve, so his rational mind forced such a conception into place. I think there are a great lot of things which is explained much better in other concepts than in MoQ, which also are part of experience. Thus I think one shouldn't confine oneself to MoQ. There is nothing really that says one has to. MoQ just happens to be a rational, that I function, method of determining and interpreting values, or purposes. Nothing more. MoQ isn't reality either. It's just a mental construct.
If I have misunderstood, you are welcome to correct me. You can say that's one of my reasons for being here. /A -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre Broersen Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 16:30 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value Andre: Can you tell me /A what lies 'outside' the MOQ? What do you mean when you and Ham 'consider the MOQ in a wider context'? What 'reality' are you referring to that lies outside of experience. Is there something you are referring to that lies outside of cosmological evolution? If so, I am very interested to hear. Have you achieved a way of arriving at 'concepts' without experience? Have you arrived at concepts that have no value? Do you have any examples you'd like to share with us? It seems to me that when you say 'MOQ just considers experience', with your use of the term 'just' you are wiping out Pirsig's intention and achievement and completely misunderstand the MOQ. I really wonder what you are looking for here on this discuss. 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
