Date sent:        Sun, 27 Jun 1999 21:14:40 -0700

Hi Jerry:

I just finished writing to you several paragraphs
on MoQ that, in the end, made no sense and led
absolutely nowhere.  I so appreciate that you took
the time to explore and analyze it.  It means a
lot to me.

What you said about science and art always
interacting with one another makes a lot of sense
to me.  I wish you would explain more about how it
fits into MoQ because, on that point, I'm lost.

Yesterday, I read something at a site that brought
up the concept of nihilism and defined it as
having a view that nothing has any value and any
attempt to define value is meaningless so why
bother.  I think I'm stuck in a place similar to
nihilism in that, although I may think I
understand value (i.e., Quality) as it relates to
my own life, I can't possibly expect someone else
to perceive value the way I do on account of the
limits of language and individual experience,
itself.

Now, after reading your work and, consequently,
doing more research into MoQ, I am completely
confused.  What appeared to be a simple solution
(which I respect in its simplicity) now is beyond
my intellectual grasp.  I don't get it anymore.
There are so many schools of metaphysical thought,
i.e., different philosophies (classical science
included).  I never have understood them all or
their differences or how they interact with one
another or spring from one another, if it's true
that they do.

After studying Plato a few years back, on my own
without outside influence or guidance, I got the
impression that anyone who challenges his
conclusions is just wasting their time because he
didn't take his conclusions seriously.  He
practiced thought as a process and that was the
point of his dialogues, not their conclusions.  At
least, that was what I gained from reading Plato,
i.e., the movement of thought, the process.  The
Idea is apart from mind and matter and mind and
matter are a consequence of the Idea.  I think
that's all he was trying to say but scholars would
rip me apart in their own analyses.

What I understand some who share their
interpretations of MoQ to be saying is that
classical science, SOM, is limited in the same way
that one's own thoughts are limited and it is ever
evolving in the same way that one's own thoughts
are ever evolving.  So, this explains why there
are so many scientific theories to describe the
same event, e.g., the string theory and its many
off-spring theories.  Psychology (what I think of
as pseudo-science) is divided into so many
different fields of thought that it's hopeless to
try to understand or even aim for a unified theory
of MAN using Psychology's means, i.e.,
(pseudo-)classical science.

Also, static quality, as interpreted by Fitzgerald
is likened to clinging to old, conservative ideas
as a way of preserving the whole of society while
dynamic quality, i.e., free thinking (in this
case), challenges the old, conservative ways and,
in consequence, social change occurs from which
human progress results.  But, also, I see that too
much freedom of thought can lead to destruction of
society (i.e., lack of self-preserving restraints)
and that appears to be one of the points raised by
Pirsig in Lila.  But not having read Lila, how can
I fairly discuss it based on someone else's
interpretation?

So, now, I see the whole subject of MoQ from a
sort of nihilistic point of view in that I don't
see the value of my drawing any conclusions about
it.  I would have to re-read ZAMM and then read
Lila but, without a well rounded background in
science, how could I fully understand?  What
difference would it make?  How would it improve
the quality of my life or your life or that of
society as a whole?  By today's socio-economic
standards,  I'm nobody.  I don't have money.  I
don't have power or a title to impress anyone.  I
don't have any influence.

In one of the articles on MoQ I read today, the
author states that nihilism is a natural
consequence of SOM thinking because SOM is rigid
in its approach in the same way that religion can
be rigid and unyielding.  It doesn't allow for or
explain free will.  Do you believe in free will or
do you think that all your thoughts, words,
actions, etc. are just the consequence of your own
peculiar genetic/biological makeup?  I hope to be
more than just that.  Maybe MoQ is a spiritual
state of being and can only truly be understand at
the level of physical experience or feeling?
Maybe it can't be logically understood or
explained or defined?  Its realization is unique
to the individual just as it is with the
realization of anything.  So, does that lead us
back to relativism?  What's the point?

The truth is, for me, that I don't see the point
in it anymore.  I'm confused.  I have ideas about
right, wrong, value (Quality), worth, and so on.
But, I've become lazy and disillusioned and no
longer see any reason to pursue universal guiding
principles that might save humankind from itself.
Each individual has to accept his own
responsibility for doing that and capitalist
society does not promote this kind of individual
responsibility or spirituality in general.

That's not what drives the economy and the economy
is valued above the individual just like material
wealth is valued above the individual.  Somehow, I
think it was the necessary resulting emptiness of
this sort of value(less) system that caused the
Littleton boys to do what they did.  Others say
that they were insane and that their actions were
possibly brought on by some chemical imbalance or
propensity in their brains.  Maybe they were just
too hurt to feel sensitivity toward others anymore
and that hurt translated into full blown rage and
their rage was further fueled by ideas expressed
by Marilyn Manson.  At this point, does it even
matter?

That's where I'm at.  What matters?  What gives
life value?  And, what if what I value differs
from what the majority of society values?  Where
does that leave me?  Should I be made an outcast?
Should society label me as crazy (that's an easy
copout, isn't it)?  Should we just lock up all the
non-believers and dissidents and throw away the
key?  Maybe there's just too many of us anymore?

Where does MoQ fit in?  I can't answer that.  MoQ
was introduced to me by Steve Moyer.  You might
want to subscribe to his TrueInsights list at
www.onelist.com.  I made his acquaintance while in
the Columbine group.  The TrueInsights list was
set up by Steve specifically for the purpose of
discussing the Littleton event.  It may be
something you would like to explore further.  He
seems to be quite a philosopher and he has a lot
hope for humankind.  I guess what I'm saying is
that I don't understand MoQ myself so (now that
I've gotten you interested) you may want to
continue the conversation with Steve.  He is more
adept in the subject than I.  Like I said above,
at this point, I'm lost.

I will, however, keep working on it.  Maybe it's
one of those things that requires time to
comprehend?  Don't give up on me yet.

I do again thank you for your efforts in
enlightening me.  I also look forward to your
thoughts on y2k, TEOTWAWKI, etc.  Being a
programmer, you may have some insights that the
survivalists don't see.

Ms A.

Date sent:        Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:02:23 -0700

Hi Jerry:

It's funny that the more I try to understand MoQ,
the more relative everything seems.  Actually,
it's not funny (haha) it's kind of tragic for me
because then I think, if everything is relative,
what value is life?  So, I end up feeling
nihilistic.  Yuck.  There's got to be more to life
than just biological circuits.  I hope.

I thought the work you did on MoQ was exceptional.
And, it does seem to be more a spiritual exercise
than a scientific one.  It seems from the
interpretations I've read that MoQ ultimately
requires individual responsibility (or perhaps
leads to it?).

When you brought science and art together in the
way you did by pointing out that they have always
intermingled with one another (e.g., the
development of the tools used to chisel a stone
sculpture or paint a cathedral could be said to
have been developed scientifically or from the
scientific side of man rather than from the
artistic side, and so on), I could see your point
of view.  And, I agree with it.  But, I got
confused over this idea of science since I had
been thinking of science in terms of the stricter
sense, i.e., the application of the scientific
method which you already outlined very well.  An
observation is made of a natural phenomenon.  A
hypothesis is then developed as a way of
describing what was observed.  Then, and most
importantly to science, a laboratory experiment is
set up to re-enact or re-create in the lab what
had been observed in nature.  If the phenomenon
can be re-created in the lab, then the hypothesis
becomes a theory and the theory is then used to
re-create what had been observed.  If not, then
science begins again.

I think what MoQ people are trying to say is that
science, itself, falls short of explanation and
may provide but one possible explanation for why a
particular natural phenomenon occurs.  Does that
make sense?  And, also they seem to say that
science, itself, has become too rigid in the same
way that religion often becomes too rigid.  And,
that the rigid qualities in both can also be
defined as the static quality which serves the
purpose of protecting members of society or
society at large.  The dynamic quality, on the
other hand, challenges the static (protective)
order of things and the outcome may propel society
forward.  Or, it may lead to too much freedom and
then the consequence is (would be) the
degeneration of society or society's downfall.
Which, I think, is what is meant by the Idea
having the potential to kill society.

I've always been pretty open minded.  I am a
straight woman, somewhat attractive, still petite,
in good shape.  I didn't settle down until my 30's
and spent the last part of my 20's in college
after a period of wild hedonism in my early 20s.

Anyway, in college, I chanced to have (at
different periods of time) 2 gay male roommates.
By coincidence, each was named George (Georges and
Jorge, in fact).  I had no problem with their
sexual preferences.  I wasn't even afraid of
getting AIDS.  What bothered me was when one of
them brought home a lover and they started kissing
one another on the floor in front of me.  I told
them I wouldn't appreciate it if a man and woman
did that in the same room with me.  So, they
understood and stopped.  That act, from an MoQ
perspective, would be an example of taking too
much freedom, i.e., an example of the dynamic
quality exceeding its own limits to the point of
destroying itself.  Does that make sense?

Another example is when the gays started having
the Gay Parade in San Francisco.  I never did
understand that and they made themselves look so
ridiculous.  Here, to me, was another example of
freedom taken too far to the extreme; so, another
example of the dynamic quality destroying
itself...or of freedom destroying itself.  I don't
care what people do sexually as long as no one is
hurt by it.  But, the parade idea only hurt the
gay's cause.  It made them look like a circus.
(My question at the time was how ridiculous it
would be for heterosexuals to march in the streets
in response to the gays.)

In the case of the gays, the static quality within
society was forced to yield to the dynamic quality
(freedom) but the consequence has not produced
greater health either physically or mentally or
emotionally or spiritually for society.  Quite the
contrary.  It has produced a backlash which now
involves students (in high school) using
homosexuality as a weapon against one another.  I
remember in the early 70's when I was in high
school that people called you a "fag" or a "homo"
but I don't recall either term being such an
intensely painful expression.  Nobody really knew
what it meant.  Now days, it seems to equate with
hatred much more intensely than in the past.  Is
that because the images of the far out gays might
be in the minds of those who fear that lifestyle?
Who cares what you do in the bedroom with your
lover?  Why take it to the streets?

Traditionally, science has been separate from art
and philosophy in such a way that science has not
attempted to study what cannot be reproduced in a
laboratory.  I think that state of separation was
what Pirsig was trying to reconcile with MoQ.  He
hoped that MoQ would give more leeway to science
so that science could now study areas
traditionally off limits (by using the MoQ model
rather than the classical model).  I don't really
understand why a scientist would want to make a
scientific conclusion about a particular work of
art.  But, I do understand why a scientist might
like to explain how too much freedom could lead to
social destruction.  That we can see happening and
you are among those who wants to do something
about it.

One of the reasons science hasn't worked very well
in defining moral and ethical principles is that
they are thought to be relative.  They change from
society to society and religion to religion.
(Although you have pointed out very well that the
fundamentals remain pretty constant throughout all
the major faiths.)  This sort of relativism has
pretty much been accepted through the modern
thinking world and when followed through to its
natural conclusion, one ends up in nihilistic
thinking...okay, so if there are no universal
truths...no universal guiding principles by which
all humankind might live, then what's the point in
even trying to make a better world or a world
where we can all live in peace?

Good question.

I think MoQ people are trying to apply a
scientific model to these traditionally
non-scientific areas of human existence.  That is
their hope.  Would its application be used
destructively?  I don't know.  But, in my own
limited understanding of science, I think MoQ
makes sense when applied to some of the difficult
moral and ethical questions facing humankind
today.  Fitzgerald gives a few examples in his
Natural Law article; although he did lose me
toward the end, I thought his abortion scenario
made reasonable sense.

What the application of MoQ to the human realm of
existence means to science is to re-envision
science.  Like you said in your letter today,
"first reduce the problem to the correct
question."  In this case, do away with the
classical science model all together.  That is, I
think, what MoQ people would have us do.

Also, they seem to equate Pirsig's 'Quality' with
'Value,' 'God,' the 'Greatest Good', that which is
above all else.  And, it's pretty clear that there
is more than one way to get to the same end.
(Which brings up the relativity problem again.)
Say, for example, that I FELT what I understood
Quality to be as being equivalent to Plato's
concept of the Idea.  But, I may be the only
person in the world who would feel it or interpret
it that way.  Still, I experience this sense that
the ultimate freedom does not derive from the
ability to do whatever one chooses but from the
realization that one is responsible and
accountable for one's chosen path..thoughts,
words, actions, etc.  And, once discovered, this
level of freedom is accompanied by a deeper sense
of value in life.  One is then in touch with
Quality, that which is the equivalent of Dharma
(according to one interpretation) or the force
behind all things, the cosmic everything.

Like you, for many years my own spirituality has
been a struggle to unite my understanding of
cosmology with my religious (Christian) and
spiritual (Eastern) education.  And, you are
right, those whose spiritual foundation is based
solely on scripture and steadfast belief seem to
have the deepest convictions and perhaps
experience the greatest peace.  But, that's like
saying that, "Ignorance is bliss."  They also
refuse to acknowledge scientific developments
whatsoever.  They ignore what science has depicted
to be reality.  And, although their spirits are
perhaps more "free" because of their ignorance,
they aren't really helping the cause of humankind
by ignoring what has been discovered to be true,
e.g., the evolution of our planet involved
hundreds of millions of years (not a mere 10,000).
Science has shown this to be FACT and pure,
steadfast Creationist simply ignore the facts.
They are pretty scary people.  Say, for example,
they believe in the Revelation prophesy that the
world will be violently destroyed before peace
through Christ will reign supreme.  If I don't
believe that, I am still subject to the
possibility that members of the rigid Creationist
camp may do what is necessary to bring Armageddon
about.  We are, after all, what we believe.

Is it fair to subject me and other
non-fundamentalists to the threat of Armageddon
because the steadfast Creationist refuses to
accept scientific explanations for the evolution
of our planet?  How are they any different than
those religious zealots who refused Copernicus and
Galileo and Newton?  They're not.  And what MoQ
people seem to say is that those we denied past
scientific developments were applying or
expressing the static quality (which is a good
thing because it also saves society).  But, they
also say that those within the scientific
community today who refuse to acknowledge MoQ are
themselves like the former religious zealots of
old who refused to accept science.  Does that make
sense?  Science is then defending itself via
static quality.  So that MoQ is a dynamic quality
pushing society (and members of science) to evolve
beyond limited SOM thinking in such a way that it
could potentially lead us back to more balanced
values.

Now, in your letter yesterday, you apologized for
starting to go off the deep end.  You said, "We've
been brainwashed into believing there's only bad
in the world. Such is what mass media does to a
society. Our view of the world is filtered and
focused on what someone else wants us to see. And
I fell for it for 30 plus years," and then you
apologized for saying it.  Yet, you couldn't have
said anything more sane.  It's just that you have
come round to seeing it for what it is while
others seems incapable of seeing the mechanisms
behind the media show.  Like you, I didn't always
see it this way (the same as you).

Steve Moyer goes so far as to say that media
defines our values for us.  Yes, they do.  The
commercials we see on t.v. define our values,
i.e., what we need to live a comfortable, American
existence.  Our primary and secondary educational
system is structured to
enculturate/acculturate/acclimate the masses, not
to educate them.  This was deliberate.  I read a
book by a sociologist named Christopher Leach (not
sure of spelling of last name).  It describes the
foundation of the U.S. Department of Education
(wasn't called that at first) but, nonetheless,
the powers that be within that department had to
devise means to enculturate the onslaught of
(especially Irish) immigrants.  That's why sports
in the curriculum became so important.  Sports
replaced the classics within U.S. school
curriculum (maybe not directly...).

Our masses of people are so easily manipulated by
this stupid media advertising because they were
never given a proper perspective to begin with.
It isn't that it isn't possible to attain.  But,
so few ever do that nobody pays attention to the
ones who see beyond the facade.  Geeze, people
don't even protest anymore.  They have become so
lulled and pacified that they don't even believe
in unionizing anymore.  They think taking steps to
protect the environment is extreme.  They do
concern themselves more with just padding their
pockets than with being human (spiritual).

I do, in the end, think that I would have to read
Lila and re-read ZAMM to fully grasp what Pirsig
wants us to grasp.  I'm not sure I ever will since
I also believe that there is more than one way to
reach the same conclusion.  I do think we so much
in common that, if we could only focus on what we
share in common, we might actually save the world
from the destruction we've cause in the past 40 -
50 years.

The present global economic system is not
sustainable.  The statement does not make me a
communist.  I makes me a realist.  There aren't
enough resources to sustain this kind of life.  We
are destroying other species and precious life.
And, now, geneticists are even altering the fabric
of life without care or precaution as to what the
consequence might be.  Have you heard of the
Terminator Seed?  Did you know the bio-engineering
is mixing animal genes with vegetable genes
without knowing what the potential mutations might
be?  They bio-engineering our food supply in this
way.

Our system of government is exceptional.  Our
leaders are not.  I can't think of a single one I
trust to make wise decisions.  Their decisions
seem to be made based on campaign financing.  It's
our fault we let this happen.  Is it possible to
correct it?  Or will corporations eventually usurp
power from governments?  Haven't they already?
What is the UN today?  What is the World Bank
today?  What is the Tri-Lateral Commission today?
Wasn't all this together used as a way for
capitalist-industrialists to spread capitalism
throughout the world?  It never has been about a
better quality of life.  It's always been about
selling that myth to the masses.  Do you know that
they still use DDT in Mexico?  What good will that
do the world when all the frogs are gone?  Frogs
are still showing signs of mutation.

I apologize if this conversation bothers you.
But, I don't think it will.  Just, tell me, once
one sees the fallacy of modern capitalist life,
how does one convince others without sounding like
a rotty socialist or communist trying to take away
essential freedom?  And, isn't too much freedom at
the heart of it?  Did you know that recently Bill
Gates personal worth was valued at $90 billion.
I've heard people say that those of us (i.e., me)
who complain about that kind of concentration of
wealth are just jealous.  How ignorant the
accusers.  We're just bloody slaves and pawns in a
well planned out capitalist-industrialist
exploitation of the planet.  I've heard that there
are private ventures planning trips into
space...so they can exploit space and challenge
the property rights status of space (for one
thing).  I think we should do something
radical...like all of us refuse to pay
taxes.....just stop.  Taxes are a joke.  They
provide welfare for the rich while barely solving
the problems of poor education or quality of life.

This turned out to be a very long letter.  I look
forward to your response.  Like you said, I'm not
a scientist...If I'm any "ist," I'd call myself a
humanist.  That humankind has the ability to
destroy life on earth, i.e., nuclear power,
thermonuclear power, chemical and biological
agents, etc. is cause for alarm.  Keeping these
destructive forces around is just plain insanity
and those at the top who exploit the planet's
resources and people to the extent that they do
(i.e., the multi-billionaires and CEO's of the
multi-national corporations) are the most insane
members of our species.  It is time for a new
economic system that will sustain us all.  These
people have the money to survive Armageddon.  They
can dig themselves underground, build an
underwater castle, or even leave the planet for
outerspace.  The rest of us will have to pay the
price for their greed.

What do you think, Jerry?  Am I crazy?  Truth is,
we've only lived this way a very short time
relative to the history of our species.  What I
recall learning as a youngster in terms of what is
of value (spiritually) in life is no longer what
is practiced in everyday dealings of everyday
Americans today.  Things appear upside down to me.
Greed appears to be the highest of American
virtues.  It is certainly the most well rewarded.
It is anti-Christian and, yet, it is often
approved and propagated by Christians.

Ms A.

Date sent:        Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:53:38 -0700

Hi Jerry:

As I was researching Thomas Malthus and his
hypothesis about overpopulation, I discovered this
Column that is mailed out weekly (I think).  The
articles deal with corporate injustices (mainly).

You can read the current postings at:

http://lists.essential.org/corp-focus/

Then if you want to subscribe, just following the
instructions below.

I am just discovering Malthusian ideas and will
write more about them next time.  Thanks for
sending along the recommendation.  I'll write back
again soon.

Ms A.

Date sent:        Sat, 3 Jul 1999 13:13:46 -0700

Hi Jerry:

I've been thinking about your last message for a
couple of days.  You are correct that Fitzgerald
accepts that life (conscious life) is presumed not
to begin until several weeks into the pregnancy
and on the basis of that belief, he then proceeds
with his argument.  It is a difficult one and one
that even MoQ is not likely to settle.  Whatever a
mother or father decides is likely to lead to
contradictions.  Even the most staunch
fundamentalists who would have all pregnancies
carried to term regardless of potential outcome
are likely to have contradictions in their own
pro-life arguments.

As for MoQ being divided into two mindsets, i.e.,
eastern and western, from my understanding of it,
I think MoQ followers would say that they are more
of the eastern mindset as you described it in your
last letter.  Prior to that, I had made a guess
about the hierarchical structure of MoQ and was,
at that time, mistaken in my own recollection of
the meaning of the intellectual level.  I would
guess from my limited understanding of this
hierarchy that the intellectual level does not
equal the individual, rather the individual falls
under the biological level and society serves to
protect the individual.  Above society is the
intellectual (in Plato's hierarchy this equals the
Idea) realm which is 2 levels above the
biological.  Without having read Lila though, I am
at a loss to fully understand MoQ.

After Columbine and my experience in the
discussion group, I have pretty much made amends
with myself for my inability to affect any real
positive change.  And, I have reverted back to my
old way of thinking and feeling about life in
general, including spiritual life, individual
responsibility, and so on.  All I can ever
justifiably hope for is to live each moment
through the eyes of self-examination and with the
hope that I can express the principles of
inclusion within my own limited realm.  Having
grown up a Christian, I am still strongly
influenced by the teachings of Jesus Christ and do
still believe that his behavior was a model of
peace.  On the other hand, I also see that others
have also achieved a similar degree of success in
this area and, so, there can be and surely is more
than one way to get there.

I do also understand that Zen Buddhism promotes
the practice or exercise of minimizing or
eliminating worldly desires as a method of
achieving peace (Nirvana?).  That's the easy way
out, IMHO.  Jesus, too, stressed that a desire for
riches would lead one away from the path to
eternal life/heaven.  There is truth in both
beliefs.  Material wealth (and especially the way
it is promoted today) distracts us from the
deeper, internal, spiritual side of ourselves.  I
liken it to being either inner driven or outer
directed, the latter being the consequence of
placing greater value on the superficial, material
world, whereas, inner driven individuals rely more
on their own interpretations of the world and
themselves.  And, of course, inner driven and out
directed exists in varying degrees within us all.

I've grown less interested in MoQ now.  I don't
think it matters too much the method one uses to
get there (i.e., to an inner driven state of being
or whatever one might like to call it).  What
matters is that we get there.  I have always been
one to ask difficult questions and so you might
classify me as a liberal and I would accept that
label if it were an expression of the critical
thinking side of the meaning of 'liberal.'  Who
would want to be anything less than a critical
thinker?  I think of it as a duty to question the
world around me, including my own values and the
values of the society in which I live.  We all
should practice this kind of liberal thinking
rather than to just accept the status quo at face
value.  I've done that, too, in my youth, and
wouldn't exchange beauty for wisdom if given the
chance.

In any event, I want to share with you a couple of
news stories from Mother Jones online.  They're
about the war in the Balkans and the consequences
of the bombings.  Although Columbine was a tragedy
that ate at my soul, I have to say that I am now
back to worrying about the greater evils of
governments and politicians and the cronies they
recruit to do their dreadful work.  Check these
links out, including the PBS link to the  Crash
(by Frontline).

http://www.motherjones.com/total_coverage/kosovo/r
eality_check/du.html

http://www.motherjones.com/total_coverage/kosovo/b
lackrain.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cras
h/

It should be obvious that if our world leaders do
not act in a way that expresses personal
responsibility as well as accountability to those
whom they lead, this posture will trickle down
throughout the masses.  Frankly, I would gladly
partake in a revolution to overcome the powers
that be, i.e., capitalist-military-industrialists.
However, I don't personally know of anyone
trustworthy enough to follow.  Of course, I was a
teenager during the late 60's and early 70's, so
much of my own perspective was shaped by the
anti-war movement, the free speech movement, and
the civil rights movement.  I dearly love Martin
Luther King and found a site at Stanford Univ.
that archived his writings.  I go there when I
need comfort.  I'll give you that URL, too, in
case you're so inclined.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/

Lastly, it has been my pleasure to correspond with
you these past several days.  I enjoy the
challenge and deeply respect you for your
diligence.  Have a great 4th of July Holiday and I
look forward to your next letter.

Ms. A.