My apologies - the last post was accidentally sent prematurely. Here it is
hopefully healthier:
RICH DECIDES HE LIKES THE WAY ROG BEGINS HIS POSTS AND DECIDES TO FOLLOW
SUIT BY POINTING OUT THAT THE MAIN THRUST OF THIS MESSAGE IS THAT WE NEED TO
EXAMINE DOGMA WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF DHYANA.
High all,
Rog, you asked some tough moral questions. I find it pragmatic to divide
possible answers into two categories:
Classic answers are any intellectually-patterned static evaluations of these
dilemmas.
Romantic answers are any immediately-experienced dynamic evaluations of
these dilemmas.
The first type has been well illustrated by the discussion generated (I've
not followed all of it), so I am writing this email to point towards the
other. Perhaps we can't even get at the heart of it because it will always
be new.
What first strikes me is that it is impossible to make any universally valid
generalizations about the romantically-immediate moral is/now-ness of your,
or my situation. (except for this one)
Neither of us is that suffering mother. Neither of us is that
suffering child. Neither of us, however, have the right to suppress
classically static answers (dogmatic values) to these questions, whether
ultimately dynamically unanswerable in conceptual linguistic terms or not.
You can't build a latter without latches. So classic answers are good and
necessary.
Rog, you (and others) are clearly well aware of the prominence and important
centrality in the MOQ of fully immersing one's "self" in this immediate
apprehension of the everfluxing current of 'direct dynamic experience'.
Pirsig refers to this immersion in the aesthetically non-dual continuum as
"care" in reference to fixing bikes in ZMM, and "dhyana" in reference to
fixing one's "self" in Lila (Sanskrit - literally: sport, play).
This romantic point of view does not apply well to questions dealing with
historical dilemmas, or very hypothetical situations. I wonder, however, if
Pirsig wouldn't support unbiased awareness of current reality as the BEST
method (or preliminary motions) for getting to the deepest possible
understanding of how it is best for a human being (culture of one) to act in
ACTUAL, rather than potential situations.
If that is correct, then Zen (unbiased awareness) plays a pivotal role in
the evolutionary psychology of the MOQ, being the leading tip or close to
it, and therefore the gathering of best answers to moral questions.
If I may, I will ask some questions in return:
If Zen (sambodhi, kensho, moksha, wu, whatever) is the best state possible,
and questions are best answered when in this state, (as analogous to fixing
a bike) and we are looking for the best answers,
then is Zen the best answer, (so far) or at least a good preliminary or
method for searching out the best answers?
If so, how does this romantic understanding of the working out of moral
dilemmas by keeping them within the flowing currents of NOW(actual and
present) relate to the formation of classical understanding of developing
'set' intellectual answers (i.e.doctor/germ) about the past or future or
even temporary pragmatic ones?
If so, how does this dhyanic importance relate to the Quality underlying the
answers that you have so far received? How does romantic understanding
springing from zazen apply to a hierarchical organization of the values of
different personal opinions? If there are no selves, can there be more or
less valid 'person'al opinions?
hmmmm...
I seem to have trouble getting my point, or the source of said point,
across, sometimes even to myself. Probably this is because the romantic
aspect of the experiences known as 'Rich' keep getting the upper hand,
thereby preventing solid, classical rational structuring and communication.
So, I will see if I can make myself clearer. (I was studying for a nasty
logic exam before your email came along and got my thinking tangled up in
the 'Great Distraction' (the MOQ, when seen from the academic view of
solidly established formal educational tie-strangling activities not dealing
directly with arete))
Premises:
1) We have a metaphysic of Quality per P'rus/sig
We have metaphysics of Quality per You and I and Others
|
{->"the reason people see Quality differently is that they view
it with different life-history/analogues"
2) We have and will always have moral dilemmas
We would like to solve them as best we can
We are trying to solve them as best we can
3) According to (Rich)'s moq-view:
i: The more dynamic the experience,
The better the state of being
ii: Dynamic experience is mysticism
Zen serves well as Pirsig's model of (unmodelable) mysticism
iii: When working: the less 'ego', the more 'zen', the less
'static filtering of experience', = the better the finished
product
iv: If the goal-product is the best answers to moral dilemmas,
Then the best method is one which flows freely from dhyan-ic
states of being
Conclusions:
i - When one desires the best possible answer to a moral question,
the first step is 'falling in step' with the Tao. (Quality)
Consequences:
i - The (most valuable) Way is that of no-self direct experience
ii - (illusory) 'Person'al opinions are to be discarded
iii - Neither the social/intellectual patterns of value formerly
known as 'Prince', nor 'Rog', nor 'Rich', are the best source
of answers to our moral questions.
*** So, given that Phaedrus was quite fed up with little Indian professors
professing that atomic bombs were ultimately illusory,
and that this gives us good precedent to take your 6 questions seriously,
(not nakedly retreating, solitarily inhabiting a distant ascetic forest),
and given the role of romantic/dynamic understanding (the most
'authoritative' - 5th code of morality), how exactly can we, being
relatively static, egoattached and unrealized, go about solving ANY moral
dilemma?
I'm thinking that you might respond that we can't solve them in a universal,
static manner, even Zen masters and peyote-munchers. But we have to. At
least, we have to come up with a way for ensuring that only the 'best'
(pragmatic, based on direct experience) answers are implemented as staBLE
latching mechanisms, while ensuring they don't become staTIC chains. Isn't
this right, if the MOQ is at least a 'pragmatically' good intellectual
pattern of value, meaning it is a good tool for fixing the incredibly huge
problems of society?
Well, I've far exceeded my original intentions, and the joys of mastering
nit-picking Aristotelian logical distinctions are calling me ever so
persuasively. I hope this made some sense. It surely didn't make any cents.
David B. offered this quote, which I think says succintly what I was
struggling to provide a romantic (nonegoic) basis for:
***
"If you take all this karmic garbage and make yourself feel better by
passing it on to others that's normal. That's the way the world works.
***
But if you manage to absorb it and not pass it on, that's the highest
moral conduct of all. That really advances everything, not just you."
***
Okay, now that's all.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
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]
