Rick, Erin, myself and all,
GLENN:
>Most people's pupils do not dilate unless you move from a dark
>place to a light place,...
No. Sorry Glenn, this is exactly backwards.
RICK:
>(I've renamed this thread to better reflect its content--- hope nobody
>minds)
Works for me.
>RICK
> First off, all poodles are dogs but all dogs are not poodles... Or in
>this case, Dharmakaya is extra light let in by over dilated pupils, but all
>extra light let in by over dilated pupils isn't Dharmakaya. Remember, to
>Pirsig the D-light is the objective physical manifestation of a "dynamic
>intrusion upon a static situation (p 389)." Your experience with the eye
>drops had nothing to do with Dynamic Quality. It did make you see extra
>light, but by a different sort of cause. In other words, there are lots of
>ways to see the light, but it's only Dharmakaya if the way was Dynamic
>Quality.
You say: "all poodles are dogs but all dogs are not poodles..."
The second clause doesn't make sense because "all dogs are not poodles" means
no dogs are poodles. In the second clause you mean "not all dogs are poodles".
Similarly, I think you mean that "Dharmakaya is extra light let in by over
dilated pupils, but not all extra light let in by over dilated pupils is
Dharmakaya".
My interpretation of what Pirsig means depends on the Pirsig quote:
"...he thought that the light was NOTHING MORE than involuntary widening of
the iris of the eyes of the observer... [emphasis added]
I take this to mean that there is nothing special about the light itself
that is let in through the over-dilated pupils. He even says that there is
nothing supernatural about the light. So it's not the case that some of the
extra light is regular light and the rest of the extra light is Dharmakaya
light. All the extra light is regular light.
The interesting thing about the eye drops is that it produces the same visual
effect as the D. light, except that ALL objects in the visual field have
the fuzzy glow (Erin, I don't know why you think 'glow' isn't suggestive of
the D. light). The only difference I can infer from Pirsig's description (and
even this I'm not totally sure of) is that some objects in his visual field
don't have the glow. I don't know if the mystic quality he attributes to the
people or animals emitting the light is an emotion bound up in the effect
or something intellectualized (by virtue of some objects having the glow and
others not).
> But if I read you correctly, you're suggesting that Pirsig thinks that
>much in the same way that there are some people who just run faster, some
>who just jump higher and some who can sing on key, there are also some who
>just happen to have pupils that tend to over dilate and let in extra light
>and that that light is Dharmakaya (is that about right?).
Pirsig attributes no cause to why some people's pupils over-dilate.
He says it's involuntary. However my interpretation ignores this and says
that understanding the cause of the over-dilation is the key to
understanding the effect. I assumed the over-dilation was caused by
non-objectivity which automatically ushers in DQ. But I was trying to
interpret what Pirsig thought, so ignoring the fact that he thought
over-dilation was voluntary may be a problem with the interpretation.
Of course, it may be that Pirsig hadn't thought through the issue enough
himself and left some lose ends, or didn't want to confront the
troublesome physical/mystical interface like I am.
>RICK
> But to Pirsig the light is the objective physical manifestation of a
>'dynamic intrusion upon a static situation (p 389)." That is, it's an
>objective manifestation of Dynamic Quality!
Not always. He says it "often" is.
>And Dynamic Quality itself is
>neither subjective nor objective. Therefore, any point of view generally
>limited to describing everything as subjective or objective would have no
>way to EXPLAIN the D-light since its cause (DQ) is unacknowledged in the
>first place. Thus, any members of a culture mired in such a point of view
>are left with describing the light as either 'objective' but unexplainable
>and therefore irrelevant, or 'subjective' which, for all intents and
>purposes, means it is imagined.
Right. From Pirsig's point of view, this explains why the culture can't
explain the D. effect properly. By culture here I think he means the
culture at large, not the explanations given by the few people in the
culture who see the light.
> So how about we combine interpretations....
>
> The D-light appears when DQ intrudes on SQ. The potential for seeing it
>requires a biological condition of the pupil which amounts to a 'physical
>predisposition' towards over dilation that only exists in a small percentage
>of the population. Those of us without this attribute only get dilation with
>changes in light. But those with it get all kinds of extra light, including
>Dharmakaya, when it occurs in their presence (when DQ intrudes on SQ).
>
> However, even of this small percentage that has the 'physical
>predisposition' to see the D-light when it occurs, most of them don't
>recognize it for what is because they have no mechanism for explaining DQ
>itself. They dismiss the D-light as either 'objective' but unexplainable or
>'subjective' because they don't have the right 'metaphysical predisposition'
>(note that by 'metaphysical predisposition' I am actually referring to the
>LACK of a general metaphysical predisposition to classify things as
>subjective or objective).
Your saying that Pirsig thinks the D. light is seen with the same frequency
in Western culture as other cultures, but is dismissed by people who see it
in our culture because of our cultural static filters.
However, Pirsig says that in our culture "nobody sees it", not that the
people who see it dismiss it. He says that in other cultures the references
to light are "everywhere", suggesting that he thinks people in these other
cultures see the D. light with much greater frequencies.
>RICK
> How about this... "When one who's pupils dilate more than normal lets go
>of his objectivity he can see the D-light when Dynamic Quality intrudes on
>static patterns in his presence." That is, to see the light one must have
>BOTH the right 'physical' and 'metaphysical' predispositions. Anyone who
>has the requisite dispositions can both SEE and RECOGNIZE the Dharmakaya
>light.
People whose pupils dilate but do not let go of their objectivity will at
least see some effect, like I did at the eye doctor. Pirsig would agree
because he says the effect is due to nothing more than the widening of
the pupils. In our culture we don't even see *this* enough to compare to
full blown D. light effects in other cultures and in religious groups of
earlier times, as Pirsig suggests.
>---His [Pirsig's] pupils always over dilate but he doesn't always see D-light
>because DQ isn't always intruding on SQ. He always sees ordinary extra
>light, but not D-light.
If Pirsig's pupils were always over-dilated he would always be like I
was at the eye doctor. This would be annoying and even debilitating if
he had it all the time, and he doesn't mention this.
Just because cats can dilate their pupils more than humans doesn't mean
they over-dilate them with respect to what the cat brain can handle.
Glenn
--__________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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 - 16:01:56 BST