Rick and all: Hey focus folks. Unless its against a rule I've forgotten, I'll use this post to reply in the normal way AND to summarize this month's discussion.
Rick said: Even taking the chronology you suggest into account (which is clearly correct), the question still remains, should mysticism be identified with the undivided (Q) or with one of the divisions (dq)? ...Let me break it down for you with a multiple choice question. According to Robert Pirsig, mysticism should be identified with (a.) Quality (the undivided whole) alone, (b.) dynamic quality (a subset of Quality which excludes static patterns) alone, (c.) both, (d.) neither. --- your choice? dmb says: Yes, the question still remains. Instead of answering the question I've been trying to make the case that the question is based on a misconception, that it is not a valid question. But the question remains because that effort did not convice. And I'm twice vexed by this lack of success because the question that remains is not the question of the month. As Hugo writes on the final day of the month, "I don't think the actual question has been addressed". And now that the time is gone I wonder if its possible to tie in the remaining question with the actual question. The idea of trying to get there from here strikes me as a very fun kind of impossibility. I mean, I don't won't to persist in being off the topic (What would the moderator say?) but the question, apparently, DOES remain. Oh, Jeez. I think we need to extend the topic. Or rather, we need to actually get to the topic. Ha! Let's call that a summary. I'm just going to go propose we just keep right on going. Then maybe I can try to make the connection between Sam's question and mine. Until then, let me reply to Rick's breakdown. The undivided mystical reality is indentifed with (a.)Quality in ZAMM and the beginning of Lila, it is indentified with (b.)DQ in chapter nine of LILA and beyond or anytime one is discussing Pirsig's MOQ, and it can be (c.)both provided that one is NOT using the term "Quality" as Glenn suggested, "as a shorthand for the two types of quality - DQ and SQ - taken together." It can be (c.)both only if one uses Quality in the ZAMMish sense. Otherwise one has the problem of refering to rocks, bodies, ideas and other static patterns as the mystical reality. But mostly I think the question is a bad one. I think there are many terms for the undivided mystical reality and they even reflect differing conceptions about it. This is not a problem. Words are not up to the task, so each of them gets at it in some way, but no term is worth clinging to, no idea is worth clingling to. When talking about such things, the more terms and ideas, the better. It practically takes an artist to talk about it with any success at all. The next best thing for hacks like me, is to get at the inexpressable idea that's behind a thousand names for the mystical reality. And it seems that making a connection between "the void" and "God, the Father" might be a bit of a trick, making a connection between Quality and DQ is not so tough. And these are just four of a thousand. Thanks, dmb MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
