Hi Mary, Marsha, Mark, Khaled, John and all,


Marsha asked:

I'd like to ask you about what you say above, because it represents the
reason for agreeing with Bo that the fourth level is the SOM level.  It's at
this level that abstract mental objects are reified and manipulated in a
formal way, with the subject's feelings/opinions supposedly extracted.



Khaled commented:
While Buddhism seem ( if my understanding is right) to be asking of self
awareness and evaluations of the self, the Abrahamic faith tend to rely on
blind faith and instant salvation.



John posed this question:

. …. The Buddha couldn't make sense of it either, which is why he dumped the
whole idea."  And my question is, did the Buddha dump the whole idea?  And
if so, why then do so many of his followers cling to that which he dumped?



Mark commented:

I too believe that intellect is not the ultimate tool to use. However it is
a tool as I interpret it from the Noble Eightfold Path.  It takes discipline
of the mind (whatever that is)….

Mark adds:

Finally, in terms of the religion of Buddhism, I do not necessarily believe
that both reincarnation or karma needs to be accepted a priori.  I have
found that science is a useful tool for exploring and verifying (to myself)
these precepts.  Indeed, science is a tool of the intellect and it is very
useful once one accepts the metaphysical nature of this discipline.  It may
take a non-cognitive leap, but this is done all the time by great scientists
(not me).



Mary asked this:
Would it be correct then, to equate karma with static patterns of value?
Putting this in the context of the debate about the definition of the
Intellectual Level sheds new light on it for me, however, I still have
questions. So to be sure I get your meaning, where would you place the S/O
split in this context. …..Do Buddhists look down on the West?



Mary also asked from another thread: I think (and you guys can let me have
it now) that the MoQ is basically a Buddhism wolf in Western sheep's
clothing…...  I know it's what I mean when I say that the Intellectual Level
is totally steeped in SOM and cannot transcend it.  I am incapable of
thinking of anything - of forming any thought about anything - that is not
me (the subject) thinking about something (the object).

_______________________________________________________________________



 Buddhist explanation of self

This long-running and at times acrimonius argument over the definition of
the Intellectual Level within Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality reminds me of
the story of an avid overzealous monk who took the words of his Zen Master
too literally:

“A renowned Zen master said that his greatest teaching was this: Buddha is
your own mind. So impressed by how profound this idea was, one monk decided
to leave the monastery and retreat to the wilderness to meditate on this
insight. There he spent 20 years as a hermit probing the great teaching.

One day he met another monk who was traveling through the forest. Quickly
the hermit monk learned that the traveler also had studied under the same
Zen master. "Please, tell me what you know of the master's greatest
teaching." The traveler's eyes lit up, "Ah, the master has been very clear
about this. He says that his greatest teaching is this: Buddha is NOT your
own mind."



The Buddhist explanation of self, self-awareness and ultimately of the
subject goes thus:

“As we perceive objects in the world (receive sensory input), we create a
subjective ‘self’ in response. Individual consciousness becomes conditioned
through the impact of the environment on the senses as well as with our
examination and identification with those experiences. The impact and
recording of an object gives rise to a ‘subject that is recording’ and thus
our sense of duality, however illusory, is created and intensified.”



Intellectual Level



My own take of the Intellectual Level within the MOQ is that where society
has evolved an organised communications and institutions to serve and
facilitate intellectual abstraction.as a whole. A collective system of
 intellect
as it were as opposed to an individual intellect.



Specialized intellectuals within this level do little else in terms of the
social and biological. Their output: products of the intellect – may it be
science, technology, literature, art or music, leadership and religion – all
of the humanities are deployed by society and us all as individuals  for
their value over social and biological ones.



This category of individuals may have been the clergy,  priesthood, sages or
whichever group providing  the “ideas” cutting edge of society. While
universities and research institutes are facets of the intellectual level of
western societies, other societies may manifest their intellectual products
differently in culture, religion and the arts.



Now it must be made clear, not all in society develop their intellectual
capabilities; only those who do so become the intelligentsia, members of the
knowledge ecosystem  that is so much referred to in this day and age.



Their primary tool is not the scientific method per se but their ability to
generate abstractions after abstractions, mental objects, intellectual
constructions and basically patterns sometimes referred to as models,
designs and templates.



Power of Abstraction and Symbol Manipulation



No doubt, to do what they do, they start with their inherent capabilities
for abstraction, the creation of mental objects and the formation of
concepts independent of sensory input; their adeptness at this we consider
intelligence and the communicative tools as language. Pirsig sees a
continuum in the physical manifestation of abstractions as symbols and their
manipulation as the indicator of intellect and their development all the way
to an intellectual level where ideas prevail over social and biological
patterns. At the apex of the intellect, abstraction is at the level of the
imagination.



Subject-Object Logic and the Scientific Method



However, these ideas, concepts and mental abstractions need not be the
product of the scientific method or the subject object logic process alone.
In the Subject-Object Logic/Scientific method, these abstractions, mental
objects and concepts, patterns  are tested as hypotheses and ‘evidence’ is
built for their validity within the context of the sensory faculties. But
the intellectual process also generates a number of abstractions, mental
objects, concepts and patterns that are not so tested for their validity.



In their expression, in art, literature, music, they also constitute the
Intellectual Level.  In this sense, yes, the Subject-Object Logic category
of activities and its SOM which we designate as science is only a sub-set of
the Intellectual Level.



Pirsig’s SODV paper clearly alludes at its conclusion to the Conceptual
Unknown as the aesthetic common ground/ or Dynamic Quality which draws out
both the capacity for scientific curiosity and the poetic vision alike.



Subject-Object Split



To go now to the Subject-Object Divide/Split itself, the sense of “self” is
a response to the perception of other objects. In this sense, it is
interesting that the “subject” is a pattern itself, and an “object” that
regards itself as different from other “objects”. That the SOM slices  the
Subjective Reality and the Objective Reality between Social and Biological
levels is a reflection of where the “self” is found to “exist”.



Duality



The duality of mind-matter in the Buddhist context, permeates throughout all
31 planes of existence and this appears in various combinations. It could  be
considered that  karma  manifests as static patterns of value strung by
consciousness from combination to combination. Each resultant permutation of
the duality is a result of karma. .



I tried once to explain karma and reincarnation to an accountant once and
compared consciousness to the cashflow, and our karma at any given point to
the stock; the balance sheet of mind and matter permutation is a static
pattern of value, carried forward at each end of the financial year to the
next year.  Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality indeed postulates that only
Quality and its derivatives Mind and Matter exist.



Consciousness



Buddhism conveys that consciousness, of which there are a number of levels
and the most superficial of which, contributes to the idea of mind and self.
This superficial level is the patterning process that takes place always in
the context of and in conjunction with other patterns.



This superficial consciousness exerts karmic weight and can also create
karmic weight. At a deeper level of consciousness; the substratum and the
primordial ground levels;  arrived at by removing the patterning process,
sense of self and even mind disappears and the reincarnation in terms of
continuity from life to life becomes apparent. The treatment of these levels
of consciousness differs in Buddhism and Hinduism; the former focused on the
diminishing the superficial levels and the latter on seeking the primordial
level. These levels appear to correspond to Static Quality and Dynamic
Quality respectively.



Attachment and the SOM Bias



For the purposes of the individual in the Buddhist context, the propensity
to generate mental objects and patterns means living within a world that is
still not grounded in Reality. An intellectual may “know” vicariously
through these abstractions, but as far as he is caught up in the web of
these abstractions he is not in touch with Reality in terms of direct
experience.



What is usually in the way and the impediment to direct experience is
attachment to these ideas, concepts, mental objects. Just observe how some
intellectuals fiercely argue for THEIR and their identification with their
ideas. As mental objects, they can be and  as much desired by the ‘self’, as
are the objects evoked by the other sense faculties.



Attempts to reserve the Subject-Object Logic/Metaphysics exclusively for the
Intellectual Level is to install  and enthrone this subset as the pinnacle
of society and themselves the result of a bias for subject –objective
metaphysics and scientific materialism. Distraction in this form takes us
away from Pirsig’s main message: describing a Metaphysics of Quality that
would go beyond the subjective-objective logic worldview, beyond to the
level of all intellectual abstractions and to experience Reality directly.



The potential development of a cognitive faculty that apprehends
non-sensuous phenomena may overcome such a bias. In his monograph “Why the
West Has No Science of Consciousness: A Buddhist View”  Alan Wallace writes:
“The primary instrument that all scientists have used to make any type of
observation is the human mind. Does this instrument provide us only with its
own artifacts, without any access to any objective reality existing
independently of the mind? Or if the mind provides us with information about
the objective  world, does it distort it in the process? …… the scientific
study of the mind in the West was delayed for three centuries after the
inception of the Scientific Revolution, which is tantamount to using an
instrument for three hundred years before subjecting it to scientific
scrutiny. What kind of scientific worldview has emerged as a result of this
profound oversight and the enormous disparity of our understanding of the
mind and the rest of the natural world?”



Pirsig adds the following:

"The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is called empiricism. It
claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or by
thinking what the senses provide. Most empiricists deny the validity of any
knowledge gained through imagination, authority, tradition, or purely
theoretical reasoning. They regard fields such as art, morality, religion,
and metaphysics as unverifiable. The Metaphysics of Quality varies from this
by saying that the values of art and morality and even religious mysticism
are verifiable and that in the past have been excluded for metaphysical
reasons, not empirical reasons. They have been excluded because of the
metaphysical assumption that all the universe is composed of subjects and
objects and anything that can't be classified as a subject or an object
isn't real. There is no empirical evidence for this assumption at all. It is
just an assumption."

(Robert Pirsig, LILA, Black Swan, 1991, rep.1994, p.121)



Buddhism in Sheep’s Clothing



If Pirsig attempted to present Buddhism in Western terms, I find the Dalai
Lama’s attempt to provide a bridge in his exhortations for science and
Buddhism to work together also in the same vein coming from the other
direction. But the Metaphysics of Quality has yet to be fully formed and is
only at is preliminary stages of development.



Do Buddhists look down on the West ?



In certain ways the collective karma of the West represents heaven on earth
because of their intellectual achievements and consequent control over the
earth’s resources used to quench the desires of its population; its
celebrities live the lives of Gods and Goddesses.  If the voracious
consumerism of both material and intellectual products and services by an
egocentric society conceals an deep emptiness, then the West deserves
compassion from Buddhists, not scorn.



Best Regards


Khoo Hock Aun
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/

Reply via email to