Quoting Ant McWatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Platt asked September 15th:
>
> Can anyone explain the Buddhist idea that you have to take care of
> yourself?
>
> Ant McWatt commented Sept 15th:
>
> If it's any help, the phrase The Buddhist idea that you have to take care
> of yourself sounds very similar to the Pirsigian idea that:
>
> The real cycle youre working on is a cycle called yourself. The machine
> that appears to be out there and the person that appears to be in here
> are not two separate things. They grow toward Quality or fall away from
> Quality together. (ZMM, Chapter 26)
>
> Zen Buddhists talk about just sitting, a meditative practice in which the
> idea of a duality of self and object does not dominate ones consciousness.
> What Im talking about here in motorcycle maintenance is just fixing, in
> which the idea of a duality of self and object doesnt dominate ones
> consciousness. When one isnt dominated by feelings of separateness from
> what hes working on, then one can be said to care about what hes doing.
> That is what caring really is, a feeling of identification with what ones
> doing. When one has this feeling then he also sees the inverse side of
> caring, Quality itself.
>
> So the thing to do when working on a motorcycle, as in any other task, is
> to cultivate the peace of mind which does not separate ones self from ones
> surroundings. When that is done successfully then everything else follows
> naturally. Peace of mind produces right values, right values produce right
> thoughts. Right thoughts produce right actions and right actions produce
> work which will be a material reflection for others to see of the serenity
> at the center of it all. (ZMM, Chapter 25)
Working on a motorcycle by an individual is "the world of everyday affairs."
Previously you have said that is MOQ's static viewpoint. Now you give it as
and example of MOQ's Dynamic viewpoint. It seems the MOQ takes whatever
position happens to be handy rather than being logically consistent.
> Platt then commented Sept 17th:
>
> Thanks Ant. This all sounds self-centered to me.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Platt,
>
> If you read the earlier section in Chapter 22 of ZMM about Henri Poincaré
> and harmony, you will see that the identification with what ones doing by
> caring in a Quality way, actually takes you away from selfish, capricious
> whims:
>
> Poincaré had been working on a puzzle of his own. His judgment that the
> scientist selects facts, hypotheses and axioms on the basis of harmony, also
> left the rough serrated edge of a puzzle incomplete. To leave the impression
> in the scientific world that the source of all scientific reality is merely
> a subjective, capricious harmony is to solve problems of epistemology while
> leaving an unfinished edge at the border of metaphysics that makes the
> epistemology unacceptable.
>
> But we know from Phædrus' metaphysics that the harmony Poincaré talked
> about is not subjective. It is the source of subjects and objects and exists
> in an anterior relationship to them. It is not capricious, it is the force
> that opposes capriciousness; the ordering principle of all scientific and
> mathematical thought which destroys capriciousness, and without which no
> scientific thought can proceed.
To me this is a rather long-winded description of the well-known phenomenon
that
scientists seek beauty in their equations. I have no problem with equating
beauty with DQ as I have said any number of times.
> Platt continued Sept 17th:
>
> It appears as if to attain a Quality perspective you try to expand the
> notion of yourself to include everything else in order to eliminate your
> normal separate self sense. Thinking or feeling "I am the world" would be,
> for me anyway, a most unattractive ego trip.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> The attainment of a Quality perspective tends to weaken the ego.
> Scott-Peck makes the important point that ego boundaries must be hardened
> before they are softened (The Road Less Travelled, 1978, p.97). An infant
> tends not to recognise ego boundaries but that is from the (selfish) point
> of view that it _is_ the universe. A mystic, also tends not to recognise
> ego boundaries but that is from the (selfless) point of view that the
> (static) self dissolves in a fundamentally Dynamic universe. Though on the
> surface, both points of view seem similar, there is the full circle of
> spiritual growth (of the individual) between them. Thinking of US politics,
> I wonder where you would put your average conservative or liberal on this
> circle of enlightenment?
> :-)
In a recent interview the philosopher Ernst Tugendhat said:
"Mysticism and egocentricity are not mutually exclusive. I believe a person
never gets past taking himself seriously, even as a mystic. Because in doing
mysticism, he is interested in the fact that HE is doing mysticism."
> Platt continued Sept 17th:
>
> Nor would I choose to abide by a reality as seen in a drug induced haze or
> in a dream as suggested in another post.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> So you dont abide by the MOQ (which, as Chapter 3 of LILA explains in some
> detail, originated from a peyote illumination)? Next, youll be saying that
> you see nothing immoral with social level dominated governments (e.g.
> Juniors) which keep drugs that undermine intellectual ability and
> creativity (such as alcohol) legalised. Sounds all very SOM to me!
Abiding by the MOQ has little to do with from whence the MOQ idea sprung. Could
have come from an alcoholic stupor for all I care. The issue is whether it makes
sense as a metaphysics or not. As for laws against drugs I'm in favor of
abolishing them. Unlike you, I resist government interference in our lives.
Regards,
Platt
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
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/
