Hi Ron, "One had better not speak at all"? What nonsense! Are we not to create experience? Are we not to feel at all, either? Is any creation of experience somehow unsatisfactory? When a painter paints a landscape is such a thing immoral?
Sometimes it seems as if some are taking MoQ down a dark path. MoQ comes from an awareness of Quality, something that seems to be lacking in the literalists who march by some dictate or another. The creative spirit of man is paramount, whether crating the hot stove (pre-intellectual), or creating a metaphysics. They are all fundamentally the same thing. The notion that we can separate ourselves from Reality, is the very thing that MoQ does battle against. Direct experience cannot be divided into the real or unreal, the more and less direct. Our very thought creation is direct experience. That some would deign to distinguish such experience is exactly wrong. The examples which Pirsig provides are meant to unify under Quality, not divide though dogma. This false separation from Quality that many educated contributors profess simply points to their enchantment within SQ. Stop this already, it is unbecoming of MoQ. Stop with the truths and the literal translations of Quality. Post on what you have learned outside of those things. By the way, Pirsig wrote a whole book describing DQ. But let us not get stuck in that rabbit hole. Let's discuss how MoQ best describes Quality. Give it a shot. Free yourself from those static chains. Cheers, Mark On Nov 3, 2012, at 8:37 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > " ... Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act > since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher > mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to > control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to > devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within a > static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try? > It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. No matter > how smart you are you're never going to play a game that is 'right' for all > people at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten questions led to a hundred > more and answers to those led to a thousand more. Not only would he never get > it right; the longer he worked on it the wronger it would probably get. . . . > ". (LILA) > > > Ron said to Marsha: > Thats the point, you don't really understand what RMP writes. Especially if > you consider that quote as a validation to your assertions. One can't use a > quote from a narrative story as though it were to be taken as a true-ism, > applicable as a clear statement concerning any context. The story evolves > along with the characters thus what is stated also evolves to a conclusion. > ... > > > > dmb says: > Apparently, Marsha thinks the quote counts as evidence against something I > said. One can only wonder what she thinks it means. Since Pirsig refuses to > define DQ, his MOQ never attempts to devour the mystic reality. To say, > "there must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality" is just > another way of saying that DQ cannot be defined. Pirsig asserts this same > idea over and over again and all of these statements are consistent with each > other. > "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual > abstractions." This is another way to say that DQ can never be captured or > encapsulated by concepts and definitions. It's another way of saying ideas > are always derived from the primary empirical reality. Unlike the > intellectual abstractions, which are "static and discontinuous", "reality,.. > is dynamic and flowing". Immediate experience is the primary reality, is DQ, > and static quality is always derived from this dynamic flux. That's what > Pirisg means when he says "Quality is the source and substance of > everything". That what he means when he says Quality is not a metaphysical > chess piece. This is what he means when he says that truth is subordinate to > the Good. > Obviously, Pirsig has not used his own quote to prohibit the creation of the > Metaphysics of Quality. > > Basically, I've claimed that Marsha does not understand the first thing about > the MOQ so here response, apparently, is to post a quote suggesting that > trying to understand Pirsig's philosophy is immoral. > > C'mon, seriously. How confused and incoherent is that? Pirsig rejected his > own philosophy as immoral? Marsha is a ridiculous troll who seems determined > to prove that nothing can ever make sense or even that making sense is some > kind of evil. She simply not the kind of person who belongs in any discussion > group. > > Ron: > Oddly enough, it was exactly this sort of position from the Heracliteans,as > Cratylus held it, one ought not to speak at all, > but who point his finger and censured Heraclitus for saying one cannot walk > into the same river twice, That the Lycium > reacted to. > > There is a valid reason to believe that because nothing true has been said > about what changes to conclude > that nothing could possibly be said truly about what is always changing,but > this can be debated , this can be > said of the quantitative but not of the qualitative. Quality persists through > change, everyone can agree about a quality > but disagree as to what that quality belongs to, they said. > > This point of view is a historical one ironically enough and the response is > very similar to RMP. > > Her point of view can be useful to our own position, but it in no way > furthers her own cause.It intellectualy > undercuts Quality. > > .. > 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
