Marsha quoted from Steve Hagen's book "Buddhism; Plain & Simple":

"The second form of dukkha is change. All aspects of our experience, both 
physical and mental, are in constant flux and change."
"Whatever we think, whatever we can point to or look at or talk about, is in 
constant flux."
"All circumstances surrounding this momentary situation will inevitably change."
"It is simply impossible for anything to exist and not change."
"So long as we remain in our ordinary state of mind, there's no escape from 
inevitable dukkha brought about by change. ..."
[The full versions of these quotes are duplicated at the bottom of the page.]


Ant replied to Marsha:
That's a neat selection of quotes but no explanation for why they have been 
compiled together.  I'm more interested in hearing your thoughts rather than 
reading a selection of quotes; even quotes by the one and only Dr Bob Pirsig!




dmb says:
I strongly suspect that Marsha selected those quotes to support and justify her 
position, which is a position that I have been criticizing for a number of 
years. Notice the theme of those quotes. They assert that there is nothing 
stable or static anywhere, that absolutely everything, without exception, is 
constantly in a state of flux and change. Apparently, Marsha is using Hagen to 
justify her reading of the MOQ, a reading that emphasizes the killing of static 
patterns, a position that describes static patterns as ever-changing, an 
interpretation that leads her to admire and even identify with the 
disintegrating title character, and a view that generally denigrates and 
dismisses the static side of the MOQ. When I criticize Marsha's position for 
being relativistic, nihilistic and anti-intellectual, this is exactly what I'm 
talking about. As Marsha sees it, even static quality is in a constant state of 
flux and change. To maintain this position, of course, she has to distort or 
dismiss an avalanche of textual evidence....


"In the past Phaedrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality 
alone and neglect static patterns of quality. ... But now he was beginning to 
see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life can't exist on Dynamic 
Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart 
from any static patterns is to cling to chaos."


What's more, Marsha's disregard for static quality directly effects her view of 
Pirsig's books and the metaphysics presented therein, which is an integrated 
system of static intellectual quality.


"The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the 
Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic 
tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks about 
does."


"Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is 
a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A 
metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any 
metaphysics." 
  



Ant McWatt replied to Marsha:

Remember just because Zen Buddhism and the MOQ have similarities, it does not 
mean they're identical.  If they were, they'd be little point in reading ZMM 
and LILA.  As such, you can't assume that what Hagen asserts about Zen Buddhism 
(such as change being linked to dukkha) also holds true for the MOQ.  For 
instance, remember this quote by Pirsig?:


"The MOQ sees the wheel of karma as attached to a cart that is going somewhere 
- from quantum forces through inorganic forces and biological patterns and 
social patterns to the intellectual patterns that perceive the quantum forces.  
In the sixth century B.C. in India there was no evidence of this kind of 
evolutionary progress, and Buddhism, accordingly, does not pay attention to it. 
 Today it’s not possible to be so uninformed.  The suffering [i.e. dukkha] 
which the Buddhists regard as only that which is to be escaped, is seen by the 
MOQ as merely the negative side of the progression toward Quality (or, just as 
accurately, the expansion of quality).  Without the suffering to propel it, the 
cart would not move forward at all."  (Bob to Ant, March 23rd 1997)

It's one of my favourite quotes of Pirsig's (even though the cart imagery has 
been "borrowed" from Hagen).  Anyway, your implication that change is dukkha 
doesn't ring true because some change - at least - is positive e.g. if I'm 
seriously ill and am treated successfully; I doubt that could be termed dukkha. 
In fact, I'd suggest just the opposite!


dmb says:

Right. There nothing wrong with comparisons and the MOQ can certainly be 
illuminated by a comparison with Buddhism but, as you can see, Marsha is using 
Buddhist ideas to trump Pirsig's statements concerning the degeneracy and chaos 
that results from such a radical bias toward the Dynamic. This stance seriously 
undermines the structure of the MOQ and even the proper conduct of a 
philosophical discussion group. When concepts and definitions are taken to be 
constantly in flux so does meaning and intelligibility, so this is a very 
destructive position to the practice of inquiry and to the object of our 
inquiry. This is not a small mistake and criticizing it is not a matter of nit 
picking.


 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Marsha compiled a selection of quotes (on March 18th 2013) from the MOQ 
> Textbook (introduction found at http://robertpirsig.org/Textbook.htm) and 
> Steve Hagen's book "Buddhism; Plain & Simple" (Tuttle, 1997):
> 
> 
> > "While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism 
> > recently out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen and 
> > published by Tuttle Publishing. I recommend you get it because it shows the 
> > similarities, between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other 
> > I have seen."
> >
> > Pirsig to McWatt, May 6th 1998.
> >
> >
> > -------------
> >
> >
> > "The second form of dukkha is change. All aspects of our experience, both 
> > physical and mental, are in constant flux and change.
> >
> > "Whatever we think, whatever we can point to or look at or talk about, is 
> > in constant flux. If we are in our ordinary state of mind, as opposed to an 
> > awakened state, this flux registers as dissatisfaction, disturbance, dukkha.
> >
> > "Even if we manage to make our situation comfortable for the moment, it can 
> > only be temporary. All circumstances surrounding this momentary situation 
> > will inevitably change. And when they do, our momentary pleasure will 
> > depart, only to reveal dukkha once again.
> >
> > "This attempt to nail down the world is a profound, if subtle, 
> > manifestation of the second form of dukkha. It is so painful and disturbing 
> > because it's nothing more than our desperate attempt to defy Reality. We 
> > may long for an other-worldly abode, a place where such pain and vexation 
> > will never strike. We may even try to create such a place, internally or 
> > externally. But no such place exists, or ever has, or ever can. A moment 
> > reflection on death should make this obvious. Everything that lives must 
> > die; everything that comes into being must come to an end or change its 
> > form. It is simply impossible for anything to exist and not change.
> >
> > "So long as we remain in our ordinary state of mind, there's no escape from 
> > inevitable dukkha brought about by change. But we tend not to look at this. 
> > Instead, we generally try to control and manipulate the world: our lives, 
> > our relationships, events, people. This attempt is the single greatest 
> > source of the second type of dukkha.
> >
> > "Until we _see_ that this is so, our highest priority will still be to get 
> > in there and control and manipulate. We honestly believe that in doing so 
> > we can make the world better for ourselves and everyone else. We won't 
> > realize that all we create in the process is havoc --- pain, vexation, and 
> > mental and physical distress: dukkha.
> >
> > "Our one way out is not through control or intentional action, but through 
> > _seeing_. _Just seeing_ is enough. But how and what to _see_? We 'll come 
> > to that shortly."
> >
> >
> > (Hagen, Steve, ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, pp.30-31)
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
>                                         
> 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

Reply via email to