Hi Jan, Yes I have purchased this book and I am working my way through it. I read 1 to 2 books per week and usually have a number open at the same time.
Currently I am working through a biography on Swedenborg by Ernst Benz. I recommend this book to you. All the best, Mark On Jul 7, 2012, at 5:17 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]> wrote: > Well Mark > > Have you considered reading "Money and the Art of Losing Control" yet? > It's yours on iTunes ibookstore for only $0.99 this month. > It contains a description of 42, or 43, aspects of static Quality...or is > that number 43 representing dynamic Quality? > (btw Anyone remembering the name of he game presented in MAD magazine in the > 60's where 43 men were aquired to play?) > > Jan Anders > > 7 jul 2012 kl. 07:13 skrev 118 <[email protected]>: > >> Helllo Anyone interested in Quality, >>> >> >> There have been some interesting posts recently; some of them have been >> directed at me. I will do my best to respond to these as I can. >> Unfortunately there were some posts which I will have a difficulty in >> determining the philosophy being expressed. >> >> As we know we are discussing a description of Quality which Pirsig brought >> to our attention almost 40 years ago. Some have been with it for that >> period of time, others are new additions to this metaphysical structure. >> All are of course welcome. As a description of Quality using metaphysical >> tools, there are certain principles that guide such metaphysics. I do not >> think I need to remind others what these are. The purpose of this >> metaphysics is to guide an understanding of Quality, in a manner which is >> always improving. >> >> I would like to post comments to some of these posts below. >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Andre: >>> >>> David asked Mark to 're-evaluate'. Mark suggests that "The idea comes >>> before DQ". >>> >>> >>> >>> I suggest...like David: please re-evaluate. You have it all upside down >>> and arse-about Mark. Now start learning about Pirsig's MoQ! There are books >>> there and Anthony has very kindly made you an offer... remember??? >>> >> >> Mark: Yes, there are books on the subject, which include a few thesis. >> There are also writings from a long time ago which are also about Quality, >> these can be found in Pirsig's writings. That you call this Pirsig's MoQ >> suggests that perhaps you are not familiar with these. The differentiation >> between a world of ideas and a world outside of ideas is nothing new. That >> existence can be allocated to a single principle is also not new. The >> concept of Value has been presented with many different names. >> >> I am not sure what you think I have upside down, since you do not say. I >> am not sure if I am supposed to guess what these are. Perhaps you can >> present what you mean. Maybe a paragraph on Pirsig's MoQ from you would be >> helpful. >> >> I remain consistent with Pirsig's MoQ. Perhaps it is my use of terms of >> concepts and examples which lie outside of Pirsig's books that confuses >> you. However, I am really not sure why you are confused. I try to be as >> clear as possible. Until you present what you mean, I cannot answer any >> better than that. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:08 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> "He began to see that he had shifted away from his original stand. He was >>> no longer talking about a metaphysical trinity, but an absolute monism. >>> Quality was the source and substance of everything. A whole new flood of >>> philosophic associations came to mind. Hegel had talked like this, with his >>> Absolute Mind. Absolute Mind was independent too, both of objectivity and >>> subjectivity. However, Hegel said the Absolute Mind was the source of >>> everything, but then excluded romantic experience from the "everything" it >>> was the source of. Hegel's Absolute was completely classical, completely >>> rational and completely orderly. >>> >>> Quality was not like that.".. >>> >>> ...What he had been talking about all the time as Quality was here in the >>> Tao, the great central generating force of all religions, Oriental and >>> Occidental, past and present, all knowledge, everything." >>> >> >> Dmb, it would be useful to understand what you read in these quotes. That >> you can google the word monism is not helpful. As you know, any >> metaphysical trinity are the parts of an absolute monism. In the physical >> world, these could be considered as Mass, Energy, and Forces. Often >> physicist try to Create a Theory of Everything to create this monism. >> String theory would be a good example of this. Certainly Quality can be >> considered both source and substance. However, the term monism in not >> really appropriate unless one is trying to explain Quality to the reader >> using rhetoric. Then such a thing is appropriate, but the use of monism is >> not adequate and will fall apart on philosophical analysis. The academic >> philosophers probably already know of the paradoxes associated with this >> form of simplification. >> >> Quality cannot be considered monistic or pluralistic. My favorite example, >> love, cannot be considered monistic or pluralistic. Such terms just do not >> make any sense. However, it can be said that love is the source and >> substance of all. >> >> The quote you present is formated in the classical mode (just like >> Hegel's). This is a difficulty in any metaphysics since it is used to >> present structure through intellectual premises. One can certainly point >> to a "grooving" with metaphysics, but this is done classically. One >> confession of Pirsig's was that he could no longer take the romantic >> approach that his alter ego (before the medial intervention) could. He >> must deal with this ego of romantic understanding as a third person. The >> romantic approach is not structured enough to write a metaphysics with. >> >> Certainly Quality has been discussed for thousands of years. MoQ is >> nothing new, as the second paragraph you provide points out. MoQ is a >> modern interpretation of Quality. As Pirsig found out it is more of a >> perennial philosophy. >> >> Unfortunately the Tao was not the central generating force for all great >> religions. Nor should it be considered as such. The Tao is not a >> generating system, it is a Way. Just like the way of playing baseball >> provides the game. It is misleading to speak of both Quality and Tao as >> "sources". This is a fallacy of using a cause effect paradigm which the >> West seem to be stuck in. Quality is more adequately described as an event. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Michael R. Brown <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> It's important to distinguish between a thing, our idea of that thing, and >>> the presence of that thing in our thinking. >>> >>> >>> >>> One may start out with ideas solidly saturated with SQ and very little >>> admittance of DQ. This doesn't mean that one *knows* about SQ or DQ. >>> >>> >>> >>> Phaedrus is an amazing example of personal growth. He was a Zorro of SQ, >>> wielding his blade - and by that very means, he gets to DQ - and thus his >>> SQ adventures were also saturated in DQ. >>> >>> >>> >>> It's all about the consciousness in which one is in - or out. >>> >>> >>> >>> One of the profoundest Zen sayings: "Zen is just a trick of words." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> MRB >>> >> >> Yes, MRB, I can agree with what you write. You have created a useful >> trinity above. One can match The Father, The Son, and The Holy ghost to >> this trinity. Religion is highly mystical, at least when practices by >> those who dedicate their lives to it. There is nothing stupid about such >> practice, and we should be aware of its mystical uses. In the past I have >> suggested a useful trinity for Quality, but I will not belabor that. If >> Pirsig did not spell it out as such, nobody will see it as such. >> >> Using SQ, Pirsig creates DQ (in its static form). He uses this duality to >> explain Quality in metaphysical terms. He does not have the training in >> which to present DQ in more convincing terms, but a careful reading of Lila >> can reveal what he means. Rhetoric is DQ, and the words and concepts are >> SQ. DQ can be considered the manner in which SQ is used, and which >> provides the growth of SQ. Most of our day is spent in DQ, and covers >> everything outside of our intellectual awareness. Since we can only focus >> on one thing at a time, everything else is not in the SQ realm, until we >> focus on it. We have memories which, until brought to the surface, are DQ. >> DQ can also be viewed as a "potential", much in the same way that >> potential energy is considered. For those non-scientists, energy exists in >> two mathematical forms, Potential and Kinetic. Potential energy means it >> can result in kinetic energy. With this analogy, SQ is kinetic energy. >> >> Another profound saying I have heard in Zen, is that "the words are >> ultimately trivial". It is important to see words as a means to an end, >> and not the end in themselves. We can argue all day long about what words >> Pirsig uses, but that will never reveal Quality. Quality cannot be found >> in words. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ant McWatt comments: >>> >>> >>> >>> "But, be careful. We have been told what happened to Pirsig." >>> >>> >>> >>> Pirsig had a breakdown (largely down to the extreme version of Western >>> culture in which he was bought up in...) Wrote ZMM. Became world famous >>> and a multi-millionaire. Bought a boat and sailed the world. Wrote a >>> sequel on an advance of a million dollars... >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes Mark, it kind of makes me less inclined being careful - strangely >>> enough. But that's just me. Maybe It's my "eccentric" English upbringing! >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, as ever, >>> >>> >>> >>> Ant >>> >> >> As you well know, Ant, Pirsig is one of my heros. I have written this to >> you in an offline communication. You seem to be making excuses for him >> above. I do not think he needs that kind of support. That he wrote good >> books came after the fact of what he went through. It is not fun to have a >> serious split from reality as he did. >> >> My point was that if you ever want to enter into the world of Quality, >> rather than just analyzing it through SQ, it is not easy. Believe me, I >> have friends who are still not comfortable with reality. Pirsig did not >> have much help with his spiritual awakening. He is quite candid about what >> he remembers. You may recall that he was taken for treatment by a >> policeman. Clearly there were some concerns of safety. He does not go >> into details about this. There is more which can be found in local police >> reports at the time. Since I looked at these more than 30 years ago (for >> personal reasons), I am not sure if they are on the internet. Back then we >> had to go to a library and look through microfiche and the like. >> >> As I have said before, there are two results from a split from "normal >> reality". One consequence is to remain "on the other side". The other >> result is to use what one learned and bring it back to others. Bringing it >> back was one dilemma that Buddha himself faced. What Pirsig did with ZAMM >> was turn a detrimental breakdown into a spiritual awakening. In order to >> fully understand what he saw, one must go there to see it. Pirsig returns >> as a traveler to try to tell us what Quality is. He then does his best to >> create a metaphysics with which to describe it. The metaphysics is not as >> important as what it describes. >> >> Again, I have nothing but respect for Pirsig. What he went through was >> difficult, and I am glad that he wrote about it. While he is not as >> prolific as, say, Swedenborg, Emerson, Jacob Bohme, or others were, he does >> present things in modern terms. It is a shame that he chose not to write >> more. But, it is very difficult to put into words. >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ant McWatt comments; >>> >>> >>> >>> Yeah, WE ARE ALL always learning... >>> >>> >>> >>> So if "the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source of all >>> things, completely simple and always new" isn't a good definition of >>> Dynamic Quality, what is? >>> >>> >>> >>> Humour me (if for nothing else). >>> >>> >>> >>> Ant >>> >> >> I think this is a great definition of DQ. >> >> As you may recall I stated that DQ cannot RIGHTLY be said to come before >> SQ. Again, I must refer you to the ghost of reason which I believe is very >> important to understand for understanding Quality. DQ is a concept which >> was made up. It comes from the intellect. Therefore, strictly on logical >> grounds, we cannot say that the concept we made up created itself. DQ did >> not exist before we made it up, just like the concept of gravity (or >> matter) existed before it was created intellectually. >> >> One cannot have his cake and eat it too. If one goes by the ghost of >> reason argument, one cannot then say that DQ comes before that. I find >> that the "ghost of reason" is one of the most compelling arguments within >> the metaphysics of Quality. It really sets the stage for all the other >> definitions and examples that Pirsig presents. Pirsig himself points to >> the degeneracy of such words and concepts. They only create more of >> themselves and will never reveal Quality as an awareness. It takes a >> little more work than just reading about it. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Me thinks thou doth make light of dark matters, good knight. Ideas of >>> >>> ideas about ideas pertaining to ideas come before ideas, do they not? >>> >>> I challenge thee to deny this. Be thee full of care lest I smite thy >>> >>> grin from the grin that thou grinnist so grinnily. >>> >> >> Yes, the ideas of ideas are a paradox that MoQ seeks to dispel. It is like >> thinking about thinking. As you know, there is a way out of this through >> MoQ. Me? I am smiling all the way. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Marsha to Greetings: >>> >>> >>> >>> I can get annoyed with Mark, sometimes, but I also appreciate his >>> intellectual jumps and heel-clicks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Andre: >>> >>> Which is fair enough Marsha, but we are on a philosophical forum >>> discussing Pirsig's MoQ i.e. ZMM and LILA and any further writings and >>> sayings from Pirsig and closely related subjects. >>> >>> >>> >>> We are not in a dance-hall. >>> >> >> Well Andre, perhaps you should stop dancing then and put down some >> philosophy in this forum. How about it, Chum? Stop all this cheerleading >> and give us some thoughts on Quality. >> >> We are discussing the description of Quality through metaphysics. What >> Pirsig writes can lead to many personal revelations. That is why he wrote >> an Inquiry. Ask yourself, what does what Pirsig wrote mean to you and your >> outlook. >> >> If we are trending towards betterness then you do not have to be >> pessimistic like Dan. It is all in how one uses Quality that matters. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Mark, >>> We are having a discussion here about the MOQ, not whatever it is you >>> are talking about. Unless you have something pertinent to add, please >>> refrain from disrupting it. >>> Thank you, >>> Dan >> >> >> My apologies Dan. You addressed your post to me and others so I had a >> comment. I am still not sure what you mean by "discussing the MoQ". You >> never responded to the appropriate means by which to discuss the MoQ. It >> just seems that you do not like what I write and then say it is not "the >> MoQ". Yet you never explain why. >> >> The MoQ is a description of Quality in metaphysical terms. I believe I was >> discussing the MoQ. My comments were directed to some >> fundamental misunderstandings that you have about the MoQ. I realize that >> you do not care much for philosophy but often you seem to forget that this >> is all about Quality. >> >> The idea of matter came before what we now agree on to call matter. This >> does not mean that what was used to created the idea of matter did not >> exist, for an idea must come from somewhere. That is all I was trying to >> point out. It sound to me like you are saying that ideas create physical >> reality. If I bump into a tree at night, this bump happens before I create >> an idea of what happened. Ideas are static, but they come from the dynamic. >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >>> >>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/**listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-**moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org> >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/**pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.**org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/> >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.**html <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 > 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
