Khoo Hock Aun said:
"Dear all,
Marsha said: "It is the West's over involvement with intellectual
patterns that prevents having this experience"
This is an eureka moment for the discussion group. Something worthwhile
to comment on."
Andre:
Hello Khoo Hock Aun:I beg to differ on your interpretation of what
Marsha has been doing here for the past 10 years or so. Once again she
keeps on quoting Pirsig to make her anti-intellectual point. Look at the
quote she's quoting:
"Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of
reality, the source of all things, completely simple and
always new. ...It's only perceived good is freedom and
its only perceived evil is static quality itself - any pattern
of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the
ongoing free force of life."
Notice: "only perceived evil is static quality itself".
She omits to include the important words here and they are: 'any pattern of
one-sided fixed values...'.
Of course (over)attachment to static patterns is a problem (as Gautama
Siddharta found) and I agree with what you say but Marsha uses this to justify
her own anti-intellectual stance. Again and again she mis-quotes Pirsig, or
rather she correctly quotes Pirsig with a wrong/confusing/partial
interpretation and hence explanation to justify her claims. Pirsig himself says
'kill all intellectual patterns' but what he means by that we all already know:
'The only exit from the suffering is to detach yourself from these static
patterns, that is, to 'kill' them'(LILA, p 407). He is not saying destroy them.
No, he says 'detach' yourself from them. Take them for what they are. Use them
when useful and discard them when not.
Marsh herself is incapable of doing this when she continually sees the dangers
of intellectual patterns. In her description of intellectual patterns she uses
terminology from which the MoQ has already detached itself. For example
'objectification', 'reification' and the like. This is in HER head and not part
of Pirsig's MoQ. This has led me to argue, for example that she should not
blame her tools when she gets a result she doesn't like. A good artist or
tradesperson never blames their tools. They know how to use them appropriately
and skillfully. Marsha obviously doesn't. She is like the tradesperson that
butchered Phaedrus' bike (ZMM).
Please remember that she uses this to 'prove' (a la Bodvar) that the intellect
is SOM. She cannot detach herself from this and then takes the stance/escape
that DQ is none other than sq and sq none other than DQ! She does this because
she traps herself constantly (static patterns are 'ever changing' and more of
that rubbish).
Also remember that Marsha does not accept/recognise any truth. So the Buddha's
Four Noble truths and Eight-fold path is considered only an opinion. It is lost
on her yet... now uses it to justify her own truth i.e attachment is the cause
of suffering. Wow, what an insight!
And you call this a 'eureka moment'? It will be such when Marsha herself
re-reads LILA and rearranges her own static intellectual patterns (which appear
to be very 'one-sided').
And finally, you need no reminder that the MoQ is a static intellectual pattern
of value (and therefore provisional...which has nothing to do with Marsha's
'hypothetical'). This is supposed to be an intellectual discussion site. We are
discussing Pirsig's MoQ and not some meditative injunctions. Pirsig himself
wrote it in an effort to improve the world a little bit. That is: improving
static patterns with the expansion of rationality. This is the full version of
DQ/sq. To not understand the distinction between them is to be very, very
confused and butchers the MoQ.
Hoping you are well,
Andre
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
