Hi Bo,
I would like to address some of your statements: On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: Buddhism is OK, it's just unclear, the MOQ is perfectly clear and I only diss(miss) Pirsig when he treat the MOQ as something inferior to Quality. IT IS THE QUALITY! Khoo: This is the most serious of the misunderstandings. With respect to Quality, we regard this as the noun, the Reality and the MOQ is the description of that Reality. This is how Pirsig sees it, expresses it as he sees it. He already said so that the description of Reality is always inferior to Reality itself. Bo claims: I stick to all MOQ tenets, the only point of deviation is the 4th. static level, but over the years Pirsig has wavered from outright rejection (Lila's Child) to within a hair's breadth of the same standpoint (Paul Turner letter) Khoo: What are the MOQ tenets, Bo ? Are they stated in LILA or in Anthony's PhD or in the accompanying text? Has anyone made a list of them and carved them on a tablet somewhere ? Have these tenets of the MOQ been passed by an assembly of all who hold these tenets to be true, their shared doctrine or first principles ? I ask this because you cite these tenets as if they are already laid down and established as the rigid rules of the “MOQ Order of Believers”. As for the 4th static level, and what goes into it, we have Pirsig himself describing SOM/Science as only one intellectual pattern of possible ones to “run society with”. Given that it is the prevailing dominant pattern in American if not Western civilization, SOM/Science is not defined as THE intellectual level. This does not remove SOM from the intellectual level, only provide that other intellectual patterns than SOM could become predominant. Of course one of these could possibly be the MOQ. Bo: But no Western can orient him/herself from this "map", believe me I tried, but it was not until the MOQ I understood. Khoo: I hope by this you do not mean to close the doors to Buddhism for Westerners. However if you have understood it through the MOQ then we need to replicate this pathway for the understanding of Buddhism for the benefit of Westerners. Bo:I build on Pirsig's about the Veda-Upanishads transition corresponding to the social-intellectual one. His assertion here however is that the Up.. era was a "non-S/O intellect" which I protest, any philosophy worth anything is an impersonal (objective) rise above the personal (subjective). Khoo: Must every philosophy and every civilization that yields one therefore only take the subject object metaphysics route ? This is the crucial point – from the Mayan to the Indian to Chinese civilization, there have been intellectual patterns amounting to subject object metaphysics as well but they do not necessarily become the dominant pattern ‘to run society with”. Its your Greek-based SOM-bias that makes you think this is the only route to the intellectual level. Bo: I guess Buddhism emerged as an insight that that this ceaseless objective over subjective chase were futile. Exactly this was the motive behind MOQ's emergence, but with its new Dynamic/Static split, its static levels of which the last was the said futile S/O "chase", it is so much easier to understand at least in my opinion Khoo: You must differentiate from the whole of Indian philosophy with its rich and varied alternative intellectual patterns and understand that Buddhism arose out of this context for the sole objective of providing a pathway to liberation from suffering for all sentient beings. Dynamic Quality is seen from that personal perspective. Bo: You are right about SOM having spread and - still IMO - the Oriental culture having had an intellectual (SOM) bout so easily can adjust (back) to that stage and become more "technological and industrial" than the West ... if need arises, while the Middle East - Muslim - culture is stuck at the social (Semitic religion) stage and regards SOM- cum-intellect as a deadly danger to their Social Quality stage ...which it truly is. Khoo: The insertion of SOM from Western civilization in Eastern societies is being tempered with Eastern intellectual patterns but the actual outcomes will be depend on how SOM prevails in the West and how various combinations may be achieved. Since you bring the matter up here, Muslim civilization is really also based on several principles of social justice and equity. Islam also has its mystical and intellectual aspects and is not an entirely social phenomenon as you claim. Islam already accommodated much of SOM and intellectual in its golden age. No doubt Islam has its rigidities but don’t be fooled by the militarists and capitalists of the West, who covet much of the world’s resources, into thinking this is a intellect versus social conflict. Bo: The rest of your post I find no purpose in responding to. Except how many twists you can find to the "sock" metaphor. But note that I now have given an account for how the MOQ is a clearer "Buddhism" so no more harping on that issue. Khoo: The sock metaphor is yours but you seem to be confused which is the right side up and I still wonder how your explanation of the MOQ makes “Buddhism” any clearer. I only pursue this in the interest of the “western Buddhism” that you claim is better than the woolly Eastern article. For Ron, another Taisen Deshimaru quote perhaps: “To obtain satori, one must let go of the ego. To receive everything, one must open one's hands and give.” 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/
