Hi Ant, What exactly do you mean by "world of the Buddha"? Is that suppose to be some mysterious, ambiguous, unreachable, strawman perspective to conveniently dismiss what which is non-western, or might it too be legitimate human insight available from direct experience at different stages of meditation or Buddhist practice? Experiences that might not be available to those who do not have the 'patience' to meditate? RMP was suppose to have had a sudden realization, not a miraculous transformation into a Buddha. It seems too easy to dismiss the Buddhist philosophical perspective with a simple 'it represents the "world of the Buddha"'. RMP said that the ideal is to hold the DQ perspective and the sq perspective simultaneously. Would that ideal be a contradiction and too much from the "world of the Buddha"? Or how about something being from the 'world of Perennial Philosophy'? Is that more comfortable? Can you more easily justify that?
Marsha On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dave Thomas said to Dave Buchanan, February 20th: > > > All your ranting to about this issue is what James characterizes as > "vicious intellectualism." Because if "static patterns of value" or > "deductions" change, it is misleading or confusing to "characterized [them] > by a fixed or stationary condition", "static." Additionally it is Pirsig's > error not Marsha's. > > That was all I was trying to establish. > > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Dave, > > Pirsig is usually quite careful in our PhD correspondence (which Marsha > enjoys quoting here) to prefix his (occasional) use of the Dynamic, World of > the Buddhas viewpoint of the MOQ. As I was trying to say at the beginning of > this thread, if you don't do that, it will lead to confusion especially for > contributors only familiar with ZMM and LILA (two texts nearly exclusively > written from the static, everyday world perspective). > > Regarding the issue of stable/static, the benefit of the term "stable" is > that it avoids connotations of Newtonian mechanics i.e. physical movement. Of > course, any metaphysical term is going to be a compromise of some sort so - > as a philosopher at least - I don't think Pirsig is in error with anything > conceptual here. > > Hope that helps, > > Anthony > > > > > . > > > > 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 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
