Steve, I think that Pisig's point of the glasses off sayings are that such speech makes no sense to the glasses on. If I say "the other side of air" it is the same thing as saying nothing at all to those with the glasses on. So am I saying anything at all? I think I am. It is saying without saying. Same as the Zen saying "thinking without thinking". It is an expression of DQ. One can say nothing, yet say a lot. No rigid sq is formed, it is DQ. Read some of the mystics, and you will see.
Mark On Oct 14, 2011, at 6:17 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > dmb: > Saying things and having the glasses off are two different things. You > keep asking about the "crazy things said by someone with the glasses > off" and I keep telling you that saying things means you don't have > the glasses off anymore. As soon as you start talking you've got the > glasses on. > > Steve: > I would like to agree. Pirsig shoulod have been careful to make that > distinction, but unfortunately that is not what Pirsig says. Pirsig > says that when the people who "still have their glasses on" hear the > statements of the one who has taken off his glasses, the ones who > "still" have their glasses on "regard his statements as somewhat > weird." > > Our disagreement is not at all about what we wish he had said. It is > about the consequences of what he _did_ say. I see him as having > slipped up here. You, it would seem, would prefer to look the other > way. Fine. Whatever. What is important is that we agree on what he > should have said if we are to read him as having dropped the > appearance-reality problem. > > Ron: > Pirsig does speak about the ability to get up and "leave the movie" > that his own experience of the movie thatre in empty space frightened > him, and that when he stepped off he did'nt fall but flew. > > Again this two-folded meaning of DQ are simply contextual by way of > one explanation. DQ and following DQ. If DQ is the well spring and > unintelligible, Following DQ means being aware of the movie, the glasses. > It means breaking the static patterns of eternal truths. The recreation act > emerges and at once an understanding, thus following DQ is considered > a static knowing yet DQ itself is uninteligible. The intent seems to be > to constantly destroy and recreate the self from the now of experience. > > Putting alot of cultural perrienal myths into perspective in Joseph Campbell > terms of the monomyth and the human psyche. > > ... > 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
