MoF'ers
I'm cross posting a quote from an MD discussion because maybe it will be as helpful to
others in
understanding the MoQ, as is was to me.
(Matt)
> It seems to me that in ZAMM Pirsig makes a point of
> distinguishing a rhetorical argument from a logical or dialectical one, and
> also makes the point that he is using rhetorical style throughout the book.
> So this wasn't a line of logical arguments. He was just taking along the
> same line of thoughts that he tried in order to come up with the
> conclusion. And then he shows how that conclusion is beneficial.
I'll FREELY admit until I read this I was in the camp that Pirsig's claim that the
Indians were the
"originators" of freedom in America was outrageous. And from analytical, logical,
dialectical,
factual, point of view it is . Yes there seems to be some connections between certain
tribal
structures and democracy, and the myth of the "Noble Savage" is clearly resident in
our culture. Bu
t
for each one of these patterns we can find numerous others which are in direct
opposition to this
claim. For example, Thomas Cahill in " The Gifts of the Jews, How a Tribe of Desert
Nomads Changed
the Way Everybody Thinks and Feels" argues persuasively that freedom is Hebrew in
origin, both in
language and spirit.
Then Matt switched the light on.
Flash One: What showed up immediately in last month's trial reread of Lila was that if
we limited
our comments just to what he said in those chapters it was easy on a point by point
basis to
discredit his assertions. And even if we used clarifications from latter on there
still were
inconsistencies. Only if you take both ZaMM and Lila as a WHOLE, a "line of thoughts"
the conclusio
n
of which are a the basic tenants of the MoQ without dissection, does the good show
through. And we
were all attracted or we wouldn't be here.
Flash Two: Pirsig claims that freedom is a central tenant of the METAPHYSICS of
Quality. If this t
o
be a universal metaphysics, as all seek to be, then one SHOULD find similar patterns
either buried
or emerging in other venues. As the posts so far this month show it really isn't that
hard to find
them. If the MoQ is correct, freedom has been an integral part of experience since
dawn of time.
So though some think it is off topic, I will return to time, with the caveat that
like the Pirsig
quote on the reality of the external world this is just a discussion of useful high
level
intellectual pattern. I'll start with these two quotes and not keep you long.
" Dynamic Quality is a stream of quality events going on for ever and ever, always the
cutting edge
of the present." S.O.D.V. pp 12.
"But what is the present? Is it just a moment, glinting briefly between past and
future, hardly
worth elaborating on? No it is to be the pulsing , white-hot center of all the
subsequent narrative
,
" Cahall- The Gift of the Jews"
Individually the both say something quite similar but together:
What is the present? It is just a moment on a stream of quality events, the cutting
edge between
past and future, the white-hot center of all the subsequent narrative.
If you remove time as a moment to moment progression, or stream of events with a
past, present, an
d
future the above statement becomes nonsense. So for the MoQ to fly it must have
"processive" time.
But the key point is that only at that dynamic instant, that white-hot center of all,
are you free
to choose
and just as importantly that choice will be reflected in the subsequent narrative. Be
ye atom, flea
,
or me.
3WD
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
