Dmb, I don't know why you are perseverating on the intellectual. 99% of our existence lies outside the intellectual. That is why Pirsig states that a metaphysics is degenerate.
If you say that Quality cannot be discussed, then you have not understood Lila or ZAMM, for that is what those books are about. You have completely missed the boat here and it is because you focus on the literal. Why don't you tell Pirsig that Quality can't be discussed and ask him to take the word Quality out of his books? What do you think you would be left with? I suggest you read those books and ask yourself if you understand what Pitsig means by Quality. The metaphysics we are talking about describes something. I'll give you a hint, it starts with a "Q". Consider the subject matter and its exposition. Discuss the exposition in terms of its appropriateness to the subject matter. How does MoQ coincide with your understanding of Quality? How can it be improved? This is a discussion of a metaphysics, not the outlining of an Instruction manual. Think about what it means, not just what it says. Try to add to it with your own ideas. It is a movement, not a dogmatic bible. Stop throwing the bible at people, that is just fanaticism. This has nothing to do with being right. This is all about rhetoric to provide awareness of Quality. You do 't know me, and you have nothing to prove to me. You owe it to yourself as a budding philosopher. Cheers, Mark On Nov 23, 2012, at 11:56 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mark began with a misconception: > I am heartened that you are willing to discuss Quality, or the "view through > Quality" which is what MoQ is about. ...As far as I understand it, killing > all intellectual patterns is a suggestion for those who get stuck in the > minutiae of MoQ and do not address the big picture which is Quality. > > > dmb says (and this goes double for Marsha): > The purpose of this forum is to discuss the MOQ. Quality itself (DQ) cannot > be discussed or put into an email. The notion that it doesn't really matter > what Pirsig thinks about the MOQ is not even remotely plausible. It's absurd. > The MOQ is just a name for what Pirsig thinks. > Is Pirsig correct? Is he right? Those are good questions but one cannot even > begin to ponder them until one first understands what he's saying. If you > don't know what he's saying, then you can't possibly know whether it's true > or not. I've only ever tried to address the first question; what is he > saying? Why am I interested in addressing that question because posters like > you and Marsha don't know what he's saying. > > "The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called > "Quality" in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality > doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of > definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to > intellectual abstractions. [This means Quality itself can NOT be discussed.] > ..Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there > is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A > metaphysics [like the MOQ, the one we're allegedly here to discuss] must be > divisible, definable, and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics." > > That is why your ridiculous anti-intellectual just can't fly. We can NOT talk > about the mystical reality but metaphysics is exactly the opposite. To > discuss philosophy (or anything like it) one MUST use words, concepts and > definitions and do so very carefully. > > Thus, you and Marsha have it exactly backwards. You could not be wronger if > you tried. > > > Like I said, the various attempts to dismiss reason, intellect, metaphysics > or otherwise undermine an intelligent discussion of the MOQ only serves to > show a basic lack of understanding on your part. It makes no sense to kill al > intellectual patterns in a philosophical discussion group. If you wanna do > that on some mountain or in some monastery, knock yourself out. If you have > no respect for excellence in thought and speech, then you have no business > here. Obviously. > > > > > > 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
