Platt, Bo Squonk and all,
Squonk: "I have a feeling that in the work of Bo, John B and others that
there is a fundamental problem in what they are saying and reflecting.
The problem is that they very often take a highly Human centred view of the
MOQ, and an extremely Human centred view when wandering into SOM territory.
I understand this is habitual conditioning of culture and language - we all
have the same cage to escape from."
JB: This whole business of locating our language in discussion is very
complex. My argument is as follows.
1 I am a human, therefore I 'know' what I know only from the perspective of
a human. The dynamic quality I encounter in the universe is encountered as
an embodied human being.
2 The MOQ is NOT dynamic quality. It is a metaphysics, an intellectual
construct which seeks to make sense of the universe. But Pirsig is the first
to admit that it is degenerate, since it is by nature static, not dynamic.
3 The ultimate basis for any point of view is not a metaphysics, not
science, but rather my individual experience of quality. Pirsig says this in
a famous letter which seems to cause much concern to some members of this
forum. (perhaps someone could give a link to this letter, written, I think,
after the Einstein meets Magritte conference). Pirsig also acknowledges in
Lila that it takes an individual to experience dynamic quality.
4 In Elaine de Beauport's fine phrase, "We speak to the cognitive
intelligence". We cannot discuss anything, without entering the limited
realm of the cognitive. This is fine when we are discussing ideas, but gets
very complicated when we attempt to discuss the higher dimensions of
experience, where language and the cognitive realm are just inadequate to
the task.
5 So to communicate 'spiritual' realities we end up talking in parables, and
usually in paradoxes. Our words are only effective insofar as they operate
as fingers pointing to the moon. Sadly, communication will not occur at all,
or be seriously distorted, if the communication is between people at quite
different levels of personal development. This seems inevitable.
So, putting all this together, I am quite comfortable speaking in a human
centred way, and must place my human experience of quality at the centre of
my arguments, always. Nothing Pirsig says or writes is superior to my own
experience. Therefore it is a terrible thing to "accept" the MOQ, as you do
Squonk. The quality of the MOQ is a form of static quality. My lure is
always to dynamic quality, which emerges fresh and unpredictable.
Insofar as I find dynamic elements in the MOQ, it is fine that I integrate
these with all the other dynamic insights I have ever encountered. If the
experience of doing this is itself dynamic, as writing ZMM was for Pirsig,
even better. But it all becomes static, inevitably. Hence the degeneracy.
Consciousness may indeed not be centred in individual human beings, and
Penrose for one argues just that. But my experience of consciousness is
indeed centred in just one human being - me. And until I have been
transformed by sustained meditative practice, I can say no other. "Truth is
a pathless land" said Krishnamurti, meaning no one, not even Pirsig, can
show us the truth. It is hard won, experientially. I can only speak from my
experience as a human being. If one day I am 'enlightened', I will speak
differently, or perhaps not at all.
John B
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:25 BST