Previously, Ant McWatt stated to Ham August 30th:
In Note 77 of Lilas Child, we see that Pirsig confirms that his view of
the self concurs with the one held by Buddhism:
Its important to remember that both science and Eastern religions regard
the individual as an empty concept. It is literally a figure of speech. If
you start assigning a concrete reality to it, you will find yourself in a
philosophic quandary.
Finally, in the section of Lilas Child titled Questions and Answers
(where Dan clarifies a number of issues with Pirsig including the
individual), note Pirsigs answer here:
The Buddhists would say [the individual] is certainly central to a concept
of reality but it is not central to or even a part of reality itself.
Enlightenment involves getting rid of the concept of I (small self) and
seeing the reality in which the small self is absent (big self).
This analogy is explained further by Pirsig in the following quote:
The Sioux concept of self and higher self is one I hadnt heard of. At
first sight it seems like a striking confirmation of the universality of
mystic understanding. In Zen Buddhism Big-Self and small-self are
fundamental teaching concepts. The small-self, the static patterns of ego,
is attracted by the perfume of the Big-Self which it senses is around
but cannot find or even identify. (There is a Hindu parable in which a small
fish says, Mother, I have searched everywhere, but I cannot find this thing
they call water). Through suppression of the small-self by meditation or
fasting or vision quests or other disciplines, the Big-Self can be revealed
in a moment sometimes called 180 degrees enlightenment. Then a long
discipline is undertaken by which the Big-Self takes over and dissolves the
small-self into a 360 degrees enlightenment or full Buddhahood. (Pirsig to
McWatt, January 15th 1994)
Platt commented August 30th:
What Ant tends to ignore in all his quotes from Pirsig and other sources
about the concept of the "individual" as a "convenient fiction" is Pirsig's
own use of the term repeatedly in Lila and other writings as if the concept
was indeed "real," i.e. a high quality value pattern.
Ant McWatt replied August 31st:
Platt,
I am well aware of all these examples of the individual you refer to in
LILA and SODV. However, these are all from the world of everyday affairs
(or static) viewpoint of the MOQ (which is the realm SOM is usually limited
to).
My primary point about the individual (confirmed by Rahula, Cooper, Scott
Peck and Hagen) is that if you want to move on from SOM (and improve the
quality of your life by avoiding dukkha), you have to also recognise the
world of the Buddhas (or Dynamic) viewpoint of the MOQ that states that the
idea of a static, independent self is essentially illusory. Furthermore,
without this Dynamic viewpoint, you start entering a metaphysical mess
(a.k.a. SOM Fairyland) as illustrated in the quote from LILA that Arlo
recently referred to:
Man has a body (and therefore is not himself a body) and he also has a
mind (and therefore is not himself a mind). But if one asks what is this
man (which is not a body and not a mind) one doesn't come up with
anything. There isn't any man independent of the patterns. Man is the
patterns. This fictitious man has many synonyms; mankind, people,
the public, and even such pronouns as I, he, and they. Our language
is so organized around them and they are so convenient to use it is
impossible to get rid of them. There is really no need to. Like
substance they can be used as long as it is remembered that they're terms
for collections of patterns and not some independent primary reality of
their own. (LILA, Chapter 12)
Platt then replied August 30th:
To the best of my recollection this is the first time anyone has mentioned
that the MOQ has two viewpoints, one static and other Dynamic.
==========================
Ant McWatt comments September 15th:
Platt,
I first remember discussing the static and Dynamic viewpoints of the MOQ on
MOQ Discuss in 1998 and have done a number of times since then. Possibly
these viewpoints aren't emphasised in ZMM and LILA because they would lose
a lot of Western orientated readers (already pushed beyond the limits of
common sense with Pirsigs radical shift from seeing the universe as
primarily being composed of substance to one composed of value) but from
carefully reading LILA'S CHILD and subsequent correspondence with Pirsig (as
seen in my Ph.D.) it becomes apparent that those two viewpoints are a
definite part of the complete MOQ philosophical system.
Furthermore, a couple of years ago, Scott Roberts and Paul Turner produced a
good series of posts here further analysing the two viewpoints in some
detail and relating them to the tetralemma (which does take the MOQ beyond
what Pirsig originally envisaged). A good summary of the tetralemma was
written by Paul which can be found at:
http://www.robertpirsig.org/Tetralemma.htm
e.g.
The self is real (i.e., it exists in static reality along with everything
else we derive from experience)
The self is not real (from a Dynamic perspective)
The self is both real and not real (it is real from a static perspective but
not from a Dynamic perspective)
The self is neither real nor not real (neither ultimately real from a
Dynamic perspective nor completely non-existent from a static perspective)
Platt continued August 30th:
If that is so, where in Lila and elsewhere in Pirsig's writings can we
pinpoint
the difference between the world of everyday affairs (the realm of SOM)
and the realm of the Dynamic? I always thought the description of leaping
off a hot stove was from the world of everyday affairs, as was the story
of the brujo and the quotation from Humphrey, Ive seen enough of the
this.
Ant McWatt comments:
Yes, youre largely correct about the latter examples being from the world
of everyday affairs though I think SOM is an aberration caused from being
(intellectually) limited to the world of everyday affairs rather being
than an exact (ontological) equivalent of the latter.
Platt continued August 30th:
That's why to me the MOQ viewpoint took our everyday experience
of everyday events and provided a new interpretation whereby instead of
experiencing subjects and objects we experience patterns of value and a
creative force called Dynamic Quality, and where an individual, like
every other subject or object, really consists of value patterns. To me
the breakthrough concept, explicated logically by Pirsig in Lila, is that
reality is an evolutionary moral order.
So I ask in all sincerity, what am I missing? Is the MOQ based on some
experience other than experience of everyday affairs?
Ant McWatt comments:
Yes, as already discussed here with you previously in some depth, Chapter 3
of LILA is devoted largely to the fundamental insight that a Dynamic
perspective (in this case through the use of peyote) gave to the MOQ:
Then the huge peyote illumination came:
They're the originators!
It expanded until he felt as though he had walked through the screen of a
movie and for the first time watched the people who were projecting it from
the other side.
Most of the rest of the whole tray of slips, many more than a thousand of
them before him here, was a direct growth from this one original insight
.
As Phædrus' studies got deeper and deeper he saw that it was to this
conflict between European and Indian values, between freedom [i.e. the
Dynamic] and order [i.e. the static], that his study should be directed.
Platt then asked August 30th:
If so, how come ZMM and Lila are [largely] grounded in everyday affairs?
Ant McWatt comments:
Because thats the realm that is open to (and requires) improvement.
Then Gavin answered (in an Ivor Cutler accent?) August 31st:
if i may gentlemen....
chapter 17 of lila deals with this issue.
....He had come to think of dreams as Dynamic
perceptions of reality. They were suppressed and
filtered out of consciousness by conventional patterns
of static social and intellectual order but they
revealed a primary truth: a value truth. The static
patterns of the dreams were false but the underlying
values that produced the patterns were true. ***In
static reality**** there is no octopus coming to
squeeze us to death, no giant that is going to devour
us and digest us and turn us into a part of its own
body so that it can grow stronger and stronger while
we are dissolved and lost into nothingness. But in
****Dynamic reality*****?
Dynamic reality is capitalised because it is primary,
fundamental more 'real' than static reality. it is the
source of static reality.
Dreams, epiphany, aesthetic arrest, near death
experiences, love, awe, ....some of the names we give
to the irruption of Dynamic reality into static reality.
in static reality the ego (social individual) is real;
in Dynamic reality it is not. the individual no longer
exists, or, if you like, the individual is all.
Platt Holden replied August 31st:
Thanks Gav. I will ponder the reality of an octopus squeezing me to death.
In South Carolina, it's more likely to be an alligator. :-)
Ant McWatt comments:
If you put the above quote helpfully provided by Gav from Chapter 17 in
context, you will see that Pirsig is talking about the (social) Giant and
its often oppressive relation to the individual (and especially the free
thinker). The static and Dynamic viewpoint of the MOQ helps the
individual wrest control from the Giant by providing a more accurate
analysis of what the self actually entails (than the traditional Western
notion of the self as being an independent and unchanging entity).
Platt continued August 31st:
But epiphany, awe, aesthetic arrest, love -- these are indeed descriptive of
experiences whereby our everyday life of static patterns is interrupted by a
response to DQ. At least that's my understanding. But, I wouldn't call such
experiences an MOQ viewpoint.
Ant McWatt comments:
Neither would I. I would call the above descriptions: Dynamic Quality as
perceived by the static viewpoint of the MOQ as also illustrated in the
earlier statement from Pirsig that I quoted near the start of this post:
In Zen Buddhism Big-Self and small-self are fundamental teaching
concepts. The small-self, the static patterns of ego, is attracted by the
perfume of the Big-Self which it senses is around but cannot find or
even identify. (Pirsig to McWatt, January 15th 1994)
Platt concluded August 31st:
Like a metaphysics should, the MOQ interprets explains rare experiences like
awe, aesthetic arrest, etc. as a integral part of its overall explication of
reality.
Ant McWatt concludes:
Moreover, the MOQ sees awe, aesthetic arrest etc. not only as an
integral part of reality but the (ineffable) fundamental nature of reality
i.e. Dynamic Quality!
Best wishes,
Anthony
.
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
