Hi Platt,
Thank you for your patient response. I am here to discuss, not to
dictate.
I agree, one must have a concept in order to discuss anything. Rational
thought is symbol manipulation. Such symbols are also concepts. I also
fully understand the ineffability of dynamic quality, and do not think
that
such a thing is an insurmountable stumbling block. I am not bashing
dynamic
quality by any stretch of the imagination.
All concepts require some kind of jump as to their acceptance. We may
not
realize this is what we are doing most of the time, due to
indoctrination.
But such is the nature of agreement. Even Buddhist philosophy which is
considered highly intellectual requires heavy indoctrination. This is
not a
bad thing, since some concepts are not necessarily intuitive, and require
much thinking along the appropriate lines (or path). Such thinking is
provided conceptually. In the end, an awareness dawns that becomes
fulfilling. Operating through that awareness can provide much meaning
and
happiness.
A rational inquiry into dynamic quality must go through this process.
The
theistic camp often resorts (though lack of training, or for expediency)
to
saying you just have to believe (become aware of) for conversion.
However,
for those looking, there are plenty of rational arguments for the
existence
of God, some based on paradoxes. The point is, MOQ, (IMO) states that
rational arguments are needed to support the concept of dynamic quality.
One must assemble this from all sides that can provide insight.
Building a
metaphysics is not easy, and as Pirsig notes, such construction can be
self
destructive due to the nature of such inquiry.
Through such rational leading, the individual becomes aware of dynamic
quality, and the actual arguments do not matter so much once the switch
is
flipped (if you will), unless, of course, he wants to convince another.
In
my opinion, Phaedrus underwent a sudden epiphany and is trying to convert
it
to words. He does this remarkably well as is evidenced by the success of
ZMM. Lila is more for those who have already got it.
It is this awareness that we are after, getting there can be hard, but
must
be supportive and not doctrinal. Using analogies to other forms of
thought
is appropriate if that helps create such awareness. There are thousands
upon thousands of pages of Vedic thought. These are metaphysical
arguments.
In the end however, one must bring in Gods. The belief of such things
is
arrived at through rational discussion, which becomes more abstract the
farther you get into it. Once accepted, it becomes a whole different
ball
game.
To begin dynamic quality with the dictate that we cannot describe it, is,
in my opinion, not a very fruitful one. There will not be many takers
that
can accept such a thing in the same way that many do not subscribe to the
dictates of religion. All of these are a search for a personally
meaningful
reality. Such a reality can be arrived at through rational persuasion.
That is the nature of metaphysics, of all kinds. Even Kierkegaard whom
I
regard to be an amazing thinker understands that jumps are necessary.
One
must prepare for the jump, however, and not be told to do so by a drill
sergeant. Jumps happen spontaneously once the brain is ready. Some get
there easier than others, some have more need than others. However, many
of
us do not like being told what to think.
Let me emphasize that this is not MOQ bashing, Quality was part of what
saved my life. I arrived at it in the most desperate way. This is also
not
Pirsig bashing, the tools of metaphysics are what he uses. It is simply
an
opinion by one person who is interested in the spread of MOQ as a useful
metaphysics. If one sees quality in everything, tolerance and
appreciation
result. It is a move away from negative thinking to one full of
surprises
and miracles.
Cheers,
Mark
