David to Andre:
In Lila, Pirsig decides to define that thing which ought to be left
undefined and he did this by placing the 'undefined' quality aside in a
definition of DQ.
Andre:
Hi David, just nit picking here. Pirsig did, of course not 'define' DQ as you
appear to say above; he made it a 'referring term' thereby leaving 'it'
undefined.
David:
Now from this perspective, I think that the awareness mentioned in ZMM is Pirsig still
talking from a SOM perspective whereby "We" are always objects going through a
certain space and time and that our intellects only capture a certain amount of this
sensory experience. The MOQ contradicted this and said that is a good idea but not
actual reality.
Andre:
Not sure if I understand your meaning here David, but on the face of it must
disagree. I do not believe Pirsig was 'talking from a SOM perspective...' (as
dmb points out as well) rather he challenges that perspective immediately by
suggesting that the 'piles of sand' are NOT the be all and end all of our
'existence'. Which is what a SOM perspective claims. It is analogy upon
analogy. Objects are an intellectual 'creation', 'space and time' are
intellectual 'creations', the data we 'get' through 'sensory experience' and
their extensions(microscope/telescope etc) tells only part of the story. Man in
this sense is the participant but Quality is the measure ;-).
In the sense that the hand-fulls of sand (i.e. those things which we
allow/accept in our consciousness) are just that, a hand-full taken from the
endless landscape of awareness (which is Reality).
Given this, we can see that the MOQ does not 'contradict' this, but rather
refines this insight and weaves it into a wonderful metaphysics.
David:
Further to your point about MOQ's Quality being the same as other stuff - I
think we can draw these comparisons and claim they all really mean the same
thing, but what value is there in doing so? Northrop and James and Zen
Buddhism and Christianity all screw up what the other person is trying to say.
Andre:
I disagree here David. A careful reading of Northrop (which, to me is like
climbing Mount Everest on bare feet and without an oxygen mask) and Pirsig (and
for that matter the perennial philosophies of both East and West) shows that
awareness of the 'common ground' we walk on is obscured by all these different
analogies upon analogies. I think the value lies in exactly that: we hussle and
bustle and fight and disagree and kill because of the analogies the different
cultures have abstracted and in the process seem to have forgotten that to
which they all point: Quality.
David:
What's the point in comparing them? Each one of these things has a view of
reality different from the other - why try make them all the same thing? I
think a better question to ask is - what's good about them? That's worth
talking about.
Andre:
At present it seems to me that all the various analogies the perennial
philosophies speak of are separated/dissociated from each other. The good about
them is what they are pointing to and that binds them. Both Northrop and Pirsig
(and I think Buddhism fits here as well) are pointing this out in an effort to
reach understanding and reintegrating that which has never been separate and
indeed finding that as a platform on which East does meet West.
David:
It's strange to me why you would only exclude the inorganic level in the
'levels of consciousness' if, as Pirsig has stated, consciousness be restricted
to the intellectual level. Have you also read Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner?
Andre:
Yes, that is my omission. Thank you for reminding me.
David:
Sorry Andre. I have to disagree with this. There is no level above the
intellectual level. DQ is not a 'level' - not even a single quoted one .
Andre:
Agreed, but it was meant to indicate differentiations and refinements within
the intellectual level especially if one wants to follow the 'contemplative
path' i.e. following DQ. The contemplative path does have 'stages' (a bit like
the 'stages' in education: pre-school, primary school, secondary, tertiary etc.
they are all 'education' but to confuse these 'levels' could be quite
disastrous). That is why I criticized Marsha for her claim that 'in mindfulness
there is no 'I'). My own experience, confirmed by most of the perennial
philosophies dispute this.
Mindfulness IS a powerful and profound practice but it is NOT complete. As
Wilber explains:
"...there is still a subtle dualism contained in pure witnessing awareness itself.
There are many technical ways to explain this, but the simplest is: the Hinayana level
aims at enlightenment for oneself but neglects the enlightenment of others. And doesn't
that show that there is some trace of ego left, getting yours and neglecting
others?".
He goes on to say that '...where the Hinayana teachings stress individual
enlightenment, the Mahayana teachings go one step further and also stress the
enlightenment of all beings".
I think that the Dynamic Quality viewpoint of the MOQ corresponds, in this
respect more with the Mahayana school of Buddhism than with the Hinayana one.
The return to the marketplace.
Thanks David.
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
