On Apr 27, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Marsha to Andre: > > Yes, I'm saying that to suggest Eastern Philosophy is something special, > outside of logic and the scientific method (SOM), and therefore disproves > Bo's claim is false. Buddhism does not represent some strange kind of > non-s/o intellectual patterns. > > Andre: > In the MoQ direct, pure experience (Quality) is undivided. Any intellectual > distinctions logically come after (as Pirsig points out).Thus it appears to > me as simple common sense that experience comes to us in S/O form. > The static organization and explanations follow usually the (Western) > postulated/ theoretical 'object'(inorganic/organic) and , again, the > postulated/ theoretical 'subject' or 'self' > (social/intellectual).
I would look more closely at what seems so obvious. I paid attention to my grandson was being taught about the objects. > Perhaps you may appreciate that the conclusions, even justifications and > subsequent empirical and pragmatic implications will be quite different > from an 'Eastern' perspective as compared to a 'Western' perspective > ( please allow for the simplification/generalization.) Perspectives will be quite different from an extroverted (matter-oriented) versus introverted (mind-oriented) point-of-view. But I have questioned before that fact that Buddhist awakening entails awakening to 'the way things really are' which, even in the East, is to move beyond self and independent objects. At least this is how I am reading it. > I think this is what Phaedrus meant by his qualification/rectification of > Descartes' statement as compared to the same statement being made > by a Chinese philosopher. I don't remember the exact wording of your reference, but of course culture will make a big difference. I started with Yoga, but when it came time to read the Vedas I was beside myself with confusion and frustration. I wanted it, but had no basis on which to build an understanding. After a bunch of years I went back to university to study as much Western philosophy as I could get. Hahaha. Yes, culture makes a big difference. > As I understand it, the SOL is postulating the dominance of the 'objective' > over the 'subjective' ( or the other way around!) and this is what I find o > bjectionable. I also find its 'remedy' i.e. a 'truly' MoQ perspective (DQ/SQ) > not needing another level. I believe the 'Eastern' perspective and the > 'Western' perspective can be reconciled (and I believe they are)in the > MOQ. They are reconciled in the DQ/SQ configuration and, again, I think > that the SOL as intellect only clouds/obscures the issue. I have not fully understood Bo's SOL to endorse it. I agree with Bo that the Intellectual patterns are based on SOM both East and West for the reasons I previously explained, and I think there is a Quality level emerging. I tend to think of the fourth level as intellectual static patterns of value rather than intellect; it's less confusing. Thanks Andre. Marsha ___ 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/md/archives.html
