Ola,
Pirsig clearly restricts us to being a collection of spov's which somehow
cohere - in other words, a body (i&b p's) and a mind (s&i p's) We've all
realised how little he has explained this topic. Diana pretty much exhausted
most really directly relevant quotes. This body and mind is both and free
and determined he tells us. The unit known as "rich" is evolving "toward"
Dynamic Quality. I might rephrase this to: The unit known as "rich" is
becoming more Dynamic with time.
This is an apparently valid question: "what is it that values, that holds
it all together, that is the same before and after I go to sleep each night
-with minor alterations-?" In short, what is the "soul", or "self", if it
exists? Well, one way of answering it is to say that this
"self-conscious-willing-advancetowards-DQ" this "coherence" I call "me" is
but another static pattern of value, where "things" gather around the center
and form circles. The pattern begins with the inorganic atom, and analogies
abound all the way up the scale.
Where we go to answer this question is itself a very important, and
perhaps necessarily preliminary foundation for anyone hoping to come up with
the "best" answer. Here's one obviously legitimate source of values:
Zen Buddhism, so far as I understand it, sees that "you" are not your body
or mind - at least not essentially, in reality. In Reality, you are (what I
translate as) Pure Consciousness (satori). Your consciousness is no
different in kind from any other being's consciousness. However, what makes
us each unique, what we call our "self" - "I" - is the specific Flavour of
each consciousness - the spacetime locale, and the DEGREE of consciousness,
which is different for each being according to its position on the great
evolutionary scale of complexity and organization.
The "self", seen in this way, is of the EXACT SAME essence as "The Self".
So Atman is Brahman, and Tat Tvam Asi (That Thou Art).
These statements I think we're all familiar with. Back to my question:
"should" Zen Buddhism be the guiding philosophy of the MOQ? To what system
of thought and practice should we look for answers?
I hope you answered: "none. I'll come up with my own damn answers".
The only way to really answer this month's topic is by asking Pirsig.
The other way is to completely recreate the Metaphysics of Quality. I
believe that each one of us should do this. Create the most beautiful map of
reality possible, based on Pirsig's books, and then "throw it to the dogs"
on the MD, or University professors, etc... Each is free to build and borrow
from his/her neighbour.
I really, super, very berrily strongly suggest that you read "The Meeting
of East and West" by F.S.C. Northrop. If you are like Pirsig and myself, you
will find the central theory of his book to be of very high, captivating
quality. The MOQ CANNOT be properly understood until his theory is fully
digested, however. This I haven't done yet. Like Pirsig writes in ZMM, it is
a difficult book. But don't get scared!!!!! You'll never understand the
static/Dynamic split, the Soul/Self or classic/romantic reality without
understanding Northrop's philosophy.
Well, them's my two bits or so. My real difficulty in sorting out the MOQ
has not been the obscurity and abstractness, but rather the incredible
immensity of ground to be covered. Discussions here, while fruitful, are
only so in a very limited, incomplete manner. Any true advance requires
CLEAR, CONSCISE, READABLE AND REASONABLE -full- expositions of points of
view on the whole thing or whole parts able to be scrutinized in isolation.
Sit down, smoke a hooley, write an essay, see that it internally coheres,
and then let us have a go at it! I will do the same when I am done.
...writing, that is.
Have a good one, eh?
Rich
"The only thing we have to fear....
...is fear itself"
Oh yes - and lack of gumption.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
