Hi Steve, I was not trying to be flippant when giving the statement "the other side of air". My point is one which uses rhetoric, and is that when one is on the side of "insanity" as Pirsig describes of himself in Lila, to "say" something as an "insane person", will seem to the sane person as if the other is saying nothing or Non-Sense). The conventional concept of "saying" is to convey meaning to the other person through conventional methods that we have all been educated to agree on. However, if no such meaning is conveyed (such as with the air comment), then such "saying" lies outside of the sq parameters which state that by "saying" one is creating sq. Saying does not have to create sq. If I say "WOW! when I am experiencing a sunset with somebody else, where is the sq there? WOW is not subject-object, yet it is a statement.
Much of what Pirsig presents can be seen in a completely different light if the "standard sq" methods of analysis are dispelled. Such dispelling of "what do I think Pirsig is saying?" allows one to get a better conception of what Pirsig is writing. One must first enter into the world of Quality, and then read what Pirsig is saying about Quality. This is what Pirsig is referring to when he speaks of Spiritual Rationality. Such spiritual rationality follows different rules than conventional philosophy. One must learn Italian to understand an Italian movie without subtitles, or walk in the mocassins of an Indian, or whatever. So, to answer your question about how does one take ones glasses off. One cannot logically take one's glasses off, that just doesn't work. One cannot take one's glasses off using the glasses. The mystics did not logically convince themselves into a different way of seeing reality. This is why ritual and meditation are so important for any mystic. The end result is one of complete astonishment. If one is not completely surprised, one is not having a mystical experience (as it is commonly termed). The problem of conveying what one sees under this Spiritual Rationality is that standard subject-object logic does not apply. This is why any of these "insane" philosophies require a guide (or somebody manning the temporary raft across the river). One cannot read himself towards such form of enlightenment since sq cannot change sq. My personal opinion of the benefits are that they are immense. I did not try to take any glasses off, but extensive reading during the '70's and early '80's, and meditation (and certain chemicals) broke my glasses, and I thought I was headed in the same direction that Pirsig took before he had his electroconvulsive therapy. He did not want this cure and was transported to it by a policeman (use your imagination there), because he truly believed in what he saw, and saw no problem. However, when one dissociates himself from conventional (agreed on) reality to that extent and is left alone, it can be very wierd and one is apt to do strange things. My solution was to once again read ZMM with this new "understanding" and see what he got out of it with the little memory that he could recall. From that and a number of other books and "guides", I was able to feel secure in my new view. After I got through that, I was able to return to a more "sane" mode of thinking. However, the grandeur of it all stays with me, and I interpret things in a much more surprised way. So, that is my personal answer to your question. It could all be trite or trivial, but it is of importance to me. The trick is creating the appropriate analogies to be able to convey what thinking lies beneath. I thought Pirsig did a pretty good job with ZMM. Sorry for all the quotation marks. If I was speaking to you directly you would get a better understanding of what I am saying. The quotation marks are intended to give the sense of a word with many meanings. Cheers, Mark On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > > Mark: >> 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. > > Steve: > I don't know what is meant by "the other side of air," so I must still > have glasses on. Do you have your glasses off, Mark? If so, how did > you achieve it? What does it mean to you to have your glasses off? Are > there benefits to taking off glasses beyond finding "the other side of > air" to be a sensical notion? > > Best, > Steve > 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
