Hi Ian, That's funny, the hippy/romantic style. Thanks for that, it brought a chuckle.
Please remember that Pirsig pointed out a divergence in thought in Grecian times (a fork in the road, if you will). He claimed that this has misled the philosophy of the West. As such he suggests the difference between Truth and Quality (as an analogy). In addition, we succumb to a subject object form of self-realization, rather than the Quality view. So when I say dumber, I am not speaking to the intellect brought about by science, which has certainly advanced. I am pointing to the understanding of awareness. We have not diverted from the 2000 year old path that Pirsig is so against. So in this sense we are much dumber. People were much more enlightened than we currently are many years before Christ in the Indian subcontinent, for example. At present, we are still headed down a path which is destructive to the human psyche. This is, of course, in my opinion based on what I read of Pirsig's. On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, Dan, > > (Between a rock and a hard place again ?) > Dan, I think you're being disingenuous in not understanding Mark's words. > > Dumber that we used to be ? > A very strong thread in Pirsig that the "enlightenment" was in some > senses the opposite. Reinforcing and promoting the SOMist aspects of > intellect at the expense of other values. > > Back to appreciating God, spirit, soul etc, returning to the Garden ? > Mark does say that the issue here is one of narrow definitions. > Undoubtedly Mark is expressing these ideas in hippy / romantic style > (I don't know why). The subject is really recognizing value for those > "more subjective" ideas for which these terms would have been the > metaphorical language used for objectifying those things that don't > fit the SOMist mould. Things where we now have a better understanding > based in quality. [Mark] Even an appreciation of God, whatever that may mean, is more advanced than the meaningless world we are taught about. The randomness of events and our place in such as happenstance is not very enlightened. The world is pushed to an objective view where the personal has no meaning other than that promoted by destructive psychology, which make the subjective objective. I think this is the same thing you are saying. In terms of my rhetoric, would you perhaps want me to speak in scientific terms (something which I do all the time)? I have attempted to provide equations for Quality, and brought in modern physics in terms of Quantum Mechanics or Cosmology. Or would you prefer Kantian styled critique? How about the pseudopsychology/new age rhetoric of William James, or the oblique rhetoric of the Buddhists? I could, if you want, speak in the confusing metaphors used by the Taoists and Zen, or even dialogue in Aristotelian or Platonic form. It is all the same thing. You are somehow beguiled by my rhetoric so you cannot see what I am saying. So, yes, in my hippy/romantic form, I speak of getting back to the garden. Isn't the romantic rhetoric so much more appealing? Love and flower power, what is wrong with that? Are you saying that John Lennon was a complete idiot? "Imagine all the people..." > > Mark, my question is why, what's your purpose, where are you going with this. > We wanted to move back "towards" the garden from where the > post-Victorians were, but Pirsig would say the garden itself is > ultimately too "hippy" swing back to some romantic ideal, and missed > the unifying value of quality across all levels. Where are we going in > the 21st century ? [Mark] How about back to Quality? Would that be a better way to put it? Fine, we are moving back to Quality. Perhaps you prefer Onward to dynamic quality, whatever you want. Who knows where we are going in the 21st century. I could say that I want to go back to small communities where people cared about each other and were not alienated by this Internet world of Avatars, but that would be impossible. I could say that I want people to see the magnificence and utter strangeness of this thing we call existence, something Pirsig calls gumption (which by the way was a hippy term in my day). I could say that I want MoQ to unify people in their observation of dynamic quality as it is happening right now, we are all on the tip of this comet together. Perhaps the analogy of the 4 levels is not the best way, who knows, there are a hundred ways to split this up. The one which provides the most meaning is probably the most appropriate. If Quality is not a romantic ideal, then I don't know what is. How about you Ian, what is your desire for the 21st century? I hope this post answers Dan's questions, otherwise I am more than happy to say it in a different way. Cheers, and thanks for the questions Mark > Ian > >> > 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
