Hi Ken, Mary and Group:
> Mary writes:
>
> On pg 439 teal is written, "'Dharma' is Quality itself, the principle of
> 'rightness' which gives structure and purpose to the evolution of all life
> and
> to the evolving understanding of the universe WHICH LIFE HAS CREATED. ...
> within modern Buddhist thought dharma becomes the phenomenal world - the
> object
> of perception, thought, or understanding."
>
> Ken writes:
>
> If this passage is read as meaning that LIFE HAS CREATED THE EVOLVING
> UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSE, rather than Life has created the universe
> the problem will clear up. If we read it as meaning that life has created
> the universe It throws the whole moq into a cocked hat. Just a bit of fuzzy
> writing. Instances like this are why I would like for us to go through the
> book, or books, and try to settle among ourselves what Pirsig's meaning is.
> This paragraph alone can, or has, created irreconcilable factions in the
> squad. Ken
Platt writes:
I read this as meaning that Dharma has given structure and purpose to
the universe WHICH LIFE HAS CREATED because in Chapter 9 Pirsig
describes Dynamic Quality which created the universe as the �ongoing
free force of life.� (Lila, Chap. 9.
I think Pirsig makes a distinction between the �force of life� as
represented by Dynamic Quality and biological life as represented by
viruses, worms, monkeys and us. In Chapter 11 where he narrates the
beginning of biological life he ascribes mindful, lifelike characteristics to
subatomic DQ forces. They �discover,� �take over,� �steer,� �select,�
�invent,� �find,� �protect,� etc. In short, the story of the creation of
biological life in the MOQ is the story of Dynamic Quality PERCEIVING a
weakness in the carbon atom and then taking advantage of that weakness
for its own moral PURPOSES. Sounds to me like �creative� life was
around prior to �biological� life.
As stated previously, I don't think DQ has any interest in or effect on the
inorganic level today. You say otherwise. I wonder what specific action at
the inorganic level you have in mind that might be influenced by DQ?
I agree with your analysis of the Truman�s decision to drop atomic bombs
on Japan. That action was completely justified by social level morality as
described by Pirsig in Chapter 17. Intellectuals who tsk-tsk today about
how awful it was to kill all those poor Japanese ought to get down on their
knees every night to thank the thousands who died on the Allied side so
that intellectuals like them would be free to tsk-tsk without fear of being
arrested, tried and shot. And it's too bad that intellectual revisionist
historians can't be made to join the Bataan death march to get a better
perspective on what World War II was all about.
I also agree that DQ is working it's moral will now whether anyone
understands the MOQ or not. But it's easy to fall back to a low bio-social
level as the Hippies of the 60's amply demonstrated, and today�s
glorification of sex and violence in pop media seems to pushing things in
that direction. The battles between levels are still raging although, as you
say, the outcome in the long run is not in doubt. We should live so long.
:-)
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
