Hello everyone On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:31 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Dan: > As I said (repeated ad nauseum) to Harding, there is no enlightenment. It > is only those who have yet to climb the mountain that the mountain exists. > Once at the top, one can see there never was any mountain at all. Going > back down into the valley the mountain exists once again but only as an > analogy. > > [Ron] > Well thats the perspective in which the Pragmatic theory of truth > opperates on > in terms of meaningful analogies, yet what is harped apon (ad nauseum) > in typical reactionary style is to paint that Pragmatic theory of truth as > possesive of the climber who has yet to climb the mountain and attacked > on those grounds. Attacking it on those grounds is not to understand > the use and meaning of the Pragmatic theory of truth. > Dan: I am not attacking anything here. Enlightenment as in 180° zen has a significance to those whose goal is to achieve said enlightenment. The Gateless Gate is an analogy used to demonstrate this non-existence. Once the student passes through the gate they realize the gate was never there at all. In fact, enlightenment is sometimes likened to the realization of impermanence. Moving on, from what I understand of the pragmatic theory of truth, it is typical of correspondence theories in that value is found in the relationships between symbolic representations and objective states of reality. The MOQ sees truth as high quality intellectual patterns of value. It is a good idea to believe these intellectual patterns correspond to reality but it is only an idea. I think this is a stumbling stone for many folk when it comes to the MOQ. They tend to liken intellectual patterns to corresponding objective realities rather than to the idea of those realities being beyond our purview. > > > > > In the new introduction to LILA, Pirsig writes: > > Zen Buddhism is sometimes symbolised with a circle.The bottom of this > > circle is where a student of Zen starts.At the 180 degree top of the > circle > > is Zen enlightenment.Here the student has completely left the world of > > everyday affairs, sometimes called “small self,” and entered the world of > > the buddhas, or “big self.” > > > > Dan: > There are many different schools of zen. Sometimes it is symbolized with a > circle, as Robert Pirsig says. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes students > start at the bottom of that symbolic circle. Sometimes they don't. > Sometimes the student completely leaves the world of everyday affairs. > Sometimes they do not. In zen nothing is written in stone. Each path is as > individual as we are. > > [Ron] > This is what I mean by avoiding the context of Paul Turners paper, > and also the criticism of your post with an arfully woven dismissal > of the key topic of conversation. > Dan: Really! I added the full quote from Lila's Child to set up the context in a more expansive way. Taking one sentence or one paragraph from a lengthy discussion tends to ignore the gist of that discussion. I think it is valuable to go back and see what prompted Robert Pirsig to make the comment that he made. Don't you? > RMP is speaking about the meaning of the symbol and how it refers > to what is being discussed not an absolute statement regarding Zen. > Dan: In his introduction, yes, he is using it as an analogy. I agree. As I said, I am not against using such analogies if and when they are needed. However, I think it is good to keep in mind that there are many schools of zen and they all use subtle analogies to prod students along the path to self realization. > > RMP continues: > > > But the circle is only half completed. > > > > The student, who has previously been directed by the events of his > > everyday life, is now directed in the buddhas’ world by a force called > > “dharma” which translates as “duty” but means a lot more.He does not just > > follow this dharma, he is one with it.He completes the circle, returning > > with an enlightened understanding to integrate himself with the world of > > everyday affairs. > > > > Dan: > Some students may be directed as such. Others not so much. Part of the > reason I am here is to share the knowledge I gained while working with > Robert Pirsig and others. If someone cares to read what I have to say, that > is fine. If they do not, that is fine too. I realize there are those such > as yourself who are incapable of understanding in the first place. > > However, it does become rather disheartening to spend so much time on these > posts only to be ignored and blown off by those who could no doubt benefit > the most by reading them. When I read effusive praise for Paul's work (and > don't get me wrong... it is a great piece of writing) and at the same time > I see him saying many of the same things I said only in a slightly > different context it tends to make me wonder what I am doing here at all. > > > [Ron] > But you are not even recognizing the context as valid, how could your > meaning be > in any regard, within the same context as one you find invalid? > Dan: Well, again, I am expanding upon the context offered in Paul Turner's paper in my own small way by adding the full quote from Lila's Child. It isn't that I find the context in said paper invalid so much as I find it shall we say restrictive. I noticed David Morey wrote saying that we now need a 3rd perspective to tie together the 2 perspectives offered by Paul Turner. I suppose we will also need a 4th perspective to tie those 3 together, and a 5th, and so on. Rather, the way I see things, Robert Pirsig guides the skillful reader from a world of subject/object metaphysics, the mythos, if you will, to a world of value, or the MOQ. It isn't that the world changes in doing so but rather our outlook on the world changes. I hope this helps to better explain my position. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
