dmb, I don't consider you in the category of RMP, so pardon me if I ignore you.
Marsha On Aug 31, 2013, at 1:04 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > Andre said to Marsha: > ... When are you going to argue something coherent around the writings of > Pirsig in the light of what the Buddha taught us that makes sense? That seems > to be your hypothetical mission here but as soon as you receive any form of > criticism in the light of a quote you present you slither away like an eel in > a bucket full of snot. As far as I am aware you still think that the MoQ = > Reality ( like the menu = the food). You still argue that DQ = sq (therefore > all sq is hypothetical and illusory). You still deny the role of latching, > you still argue intellect = SOM (reified and all). All these are contrary > to Pirsig's statements and mission in an effort to develop a metaphysics that > will improve the world a little bit. The only response we get from you is > like the latest fashion show; at present the magic word is 'detachment', stop > thinking (that's evil's reification itself) be 'in the now', and all > suffering will just vanish. > > > > dmb says: > Yes, apparently she thinks it's just fine to slither away from every > criticism of her thinking because thinking itself is the enemy. She > consistently misinterprets Pirsig along these anti-intellectual lines. The > purpose of mystic meditation, he says, is to bring one's self closer to > experience "by eliminating stale, confusing, static, intellectual attachments > of the past." Instead of taking meditation as a way to eliminate stale, > confusing attachments, she takes it as a way to eliminate static intellect > altogether. > > Why would she want to do that? Like you said, she thinks that all thought is > SOM, that thought can never escape from the conceptual error known as > reification. Instead of eliminating the error, those stale confusing > attachments of the past, she thinks the purpose of the MOQ is to eliminate > thinking itself - in favor of meditation or pure DQ. But that's not what > Pirsig is saying at all. > > He tells us what the purpose of meditation as part of a larger explanation as > to the meaning of the "static-Dynamic division of Quality". It's part of the > hot stove example, wherein the front-edge of his experience is Dynamic, and > he acts in response and then "later he generates static patterns of thought > to explain the situation". Who would jump of the stove faster, "those who > study only subject-object science" or "those who study only meditative > mysticism"? The mystics students would jump first, Pirsig says. > > While subject-object science can rightly be identified with the "disease", > the "cure" is NOT to "study only meditative mysticism". The cure is the MOQ, > a philosophy that incorporates and acknowledges the empirical validity of > mystic meditation. It's a philosophy that's far more empirical than > subject-object science and including these kinds of experiences is an example > of the MOQ's radical empiricism. So I take the quote to mean that the purpose > of meditation is to improve the quality of thought by bringing it closer to > actual experience, not to eliminate thought. This expanded empiricism is > precisely what eliminates SOM and the reification problem, just as in > Buddhism. > > > "In order to understand what is being said here, one should try and imagine > all things, objects of experience and oneself, the one who is experiencing, > as just a flow of perceptions. We do not know that there is something "out > there". We have only experiences of colours, shapes, tactile data, and so on. > We also don't know that we ourselves are anything than a further series of > experiences. Taken together, there is only an ever-changing flow of > perceptions (vijnaptimatra)... Due to our beginningless ignorance we > construct these perceptions into enduring subjects and objects confronting > each other. This is irrational, things are not really like that, and it leads > to suffering and frustration. The constructed objects are the conceptualised > aspect. The flow of perceptions which forms the basis for our mistaken > constructions is the dependent aspect." > (Paul Williams, "Mahayana Buddhism", Routledge, 1989, p.83/84). > > > And what would that do to the quality of one's life, anyway? We can't go > through life without thinking the only issue is whether we do it badly or > not. In any case, the quote should be continued because Pirsig goes on to say > something about SOM as a stale, confusing attachment of the past and about > the MOQ as an improved way of thinking.... > > "In a subject object metaphysics morals and art are worlds apart... But in > the Metaphysics of Quality that division doesn't exist. They're the same. > They both become much more intelligible when references to what is subject > and objective are completely thrown away and references to what is static and > what is Dynamic are taken up instead." > > > "The second of James' two main systems of philosophy ...was his radical > empiricism. By this he meant that subjects and objects are secondary. They > are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he described as > 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later > reflection with its conceptual categories.' In this basic flux of experience, > the distinctions of reflective thought, such as those between consciousness > and content, subject and object, mind and matter, have not yet emerged in the > forms we make them. ...James had condensed this description to a single > sentence: There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, > because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic > and flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used > for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality." (364-5) > > > This is the basic subdivision Marsha does not comprehend. Although it's > presented over the course of the whole book, described in a paragraph and > then condensed into a single sentence, she just can't grasp the meaning. > > It's a mighty strong case of confirmation bias wherein none of the evidence > is understood AS evidence or otherwise comprehended. > > The result is total paralysis. > > > > > > > > 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
