Hi Ian, Thanks for trying to move the discussion into more fertile grounds. We can go round and round with the parsing of definitions and usages, but we end up where we started without much advancement. In my opinion, the advancement should be directed towards making MoQ more understandable to the general public. The idea is that this metaphysics will survive long after our lifetimes. It is way too early to have arrived at the best display, however discussion amongst disparate people is one advantage the internet offers that wasn't present in the previous propagation of a metaphysics. So long as our intent is somewhat selfless, it will happen.
My "thesis" is similar to yours. As I see it, MoQ is a Western interpretation of a perennial philosophy. As such, it uses modern paradigms and allegories with which to create the fable. Trying to impart the message of MoQ is like trying to tell the Titanic to start turning. However, it is not clear how far the iceberg is, or if there is any iceberg at all. I am not a Doom type of person. However, there appears to be a disconnect between the adoration of the intellect (as it is taught to us), and the experiential mind. Most of our rationality comes from a place outside the intellect, something which John seems to appreciate. I too do not want to get into a debate on what the intellect is because this simply misdirects one as to what is being accomplished here. There are more important areas in my opinion. One is: "What are we missing in modern day Western thought?" You seem to allude to this as well. Pirsig uses the analogy of the split from a more intimate view of existence (Sophists) to the more Western (Aristotelian) view of existence. Of course the Sophist did not invent what they spoke of. Using Pirsig's tale, the rise of large schools of thought that were dominated by single individuals (Aristotle), resulted in the confining of thought in the same way as the Church did later on. One could perhaps say this is a tendency of man, that being to either lead or to follow. As I have stated in previous posts, it is very difficult to distinguish between the conceptual and the preconceptual. It would appear that the line is drawn by the social level. That is, once we share something it becomes "conceptual". This makes sense to me since in order to share something we must first objectivize it. If this is a good working line of demarcation, then we can investigate the preconceptual. This is a study into the "esoteric" as I like to call it, but I suppose it could also be termed the "subjective". Of course all these terms have their difficulties. The point being that we can only investigate the preconceptual through a personal level. Having said that, this forum allows us to learn how others have done it, and what they have come up with in terms of better explaining MoQ, to those dissatisfied with the "March of Progress" of Western thinking. Of course we are not the first or only ones doing this. In fact one can learn a lot about this preconceptual investigation from reading Rudolf Steiner. However, the appeal of the MoQ method was on full display in the success of ZAMM. Believe me, many many people understood what Quality was without any confusion through the implementation of Western Philosophical Terms. Therefore, we know that the audience is there and waiting. While Pirsig says that Lila is the more important work, he is only saying this in terms of the body explanation. This is certainly not true in terms of the number of people affected respectively by his two writings. Now, I have asked this before (with no response), but what does MoQ teach us? What have we found from a personal point of view that we wish to shout from the roof tops? This is where a part of the discussion can focuss, for this comes from the esoteric realm of meaning. Thanks again, Mark On 5/4/12, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Folks (#4 of the day). > > I'm disappointed that recent discussions all lead back to definitions > of intellect, or rather not that they lead back there, but that they > remain a fixation, a block to leading anywhere else. > One of the reasons I was always happy to work with Bo's arguments > (even though I didn't agree with his conclusions) was that it was > about the nub of our problem. > > I've never been about precisely documenting the MoQ, any better than > Pirsig had already written about it. I continue to be about doing > something with the MoQ to improve how human minds - mine included - > inhabit the world. Improve, progress, as in better, as in good. (I > respect that others have different aims and motivations.) > > My thesis is quite simple. > > When Pirsig was writing about intellect he was writing about intellect > as it had become, post-enlightenment, classical objective rational > intellect. I have no doubt this is what Pirsig means by intellect, and > I have no doubt that kind of intellect is what is "reified" in the > level of Intellectual SPV's. (But lets not add arguments about the > definition of reified to those about the definition of intellect.) > This is all I mean by GOF-Intellect. > > Pirsig's point was that there is something beyond that. The MoQ way of > thinking - where the world also involves radical empirical experiences > - pre-conceptual - that is we know them before any attempt to > conceptualize them (and exchange emails using words). And we know the > value if using them in the real world without needing to conceptualize > and define them - they are forever poorly defined in any > GOF-Intellectual sense - but valuable. (Things that were already well > known to non-intellectual schools of thought, like Zen Buddhism for > example.) > > The exiting thing for me has been that this is so consistent with > everything written on evolved brains and minds since Pirsig originally > wrote. > Read Iain McGilchrist "Master and Emissary" > Read "Thinking Fast and Slow" > Read Jonathan Haidt "The Righteous Mind" > Listen to Bryan Appleyard and Iain McGilchrist > http://www.wellcomecollection.org/whats-on/events/the-divided-mind.aspx > > The depressing thing about MD is being stuck in "intellectual" debates > about "intellect". > No one is anti GOF-Intellect, I simply know we all believe there is > something more, because none of us can find a definition we can agree > on ? For me that's a good thing. That's why we appreciated Pirsig's > work. > > I don't want to see the debate limited, or the wonder of MoQ "reduced" > in any reductionist way - but we have to "get over ourselves". > > 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
