Hello MOQers:
This is for all who have posted a comment on this thread, and especially for
John Beasley, who started it.
When we talk about the difference between intellectual pattterns and direct
mystical experience we're talking about the differences between static and
Dynamic Quality. As i understand it, it is wrong to dismiss or underestimate
the importance of either. These are not mutually exclusive forces, but are
two sides of a single coin. As Pirsig says...
"Although DQ, the quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live,
these patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world.
Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other." P121
And he demonstates the necessity of respecting the dual aspect of quality in
the very construction of his MOQ...
"When this understanding first broke through in Phaedrus mind, that ethics
and science had suddenly been integrated into a single system, he became so
manic he couldn't think of anything else for days. The only time he had been
more manic about an abstract idea was when he had first hit upon the idea of
undefined Quality itself. The consequences of that first mania had been
disastrous and so now , this time, he told himself just to calm down and dig
in. It was, for him, a great Dynamic breakthrough, but if he wanted to hang
on to it he had better do some static latching as quickly and thoroughly as
possible." P157
His first mania was disastrous precisely because he failed on the static
side - at least temporarily. Dynamic experiences, that is to say creative
insights and mystical experiences, are worth far more if we can "hang on to
it". That's what static patterns are for. These Dynamic breakthroughs are
not an end in itself. They're supposed to improve the individual and the
world. They're supposed to make a difference in the manifested world and in
your life. Without DQ everything goes stale and dies, but without static
patterns nothing can last.
I've been re-visiting Wilber and am amazed at the similarities between
Pirsig and Wilber. They both refer to William James as the first mainstream
philosopher to adopt a "mystical" view of reality and they both think he was
pretty much right on.
>From Ken Wilber's A BRIEF HISTORY OF EVERYTHING...
"(Bertrand) Russell is quite right to credit James with being the first
"mainstream" or "accepted" philosopher to advance this nondual position. Of
course, virtually all of the mystical or contemplative sages had been saying
this for a few millennia, but James to his eternal credit brought it
crashing into the mainstream." P233
But rejection of subjects and objects as the ultimate metaphysical bedrock
of reality is NOT the same thing as rejecting the very existence of subjects
and objects. Subjects and objects do not disappear from the world in the MOQ
or in the mystic's understanding. They simply become transparent. We see
through them. We see the emptiness of those forms. Subjects and objects
still exist for MOQers and mystics, but they are demoted to something less
than the ultimate reality. Pirsig explains how and where both subjects and
objects fit into the static levels of the MOQ. You know the one....
>From Wilber's BRIEF HISTORY. The emphasis is Wilber's..
"Nonduality doesn't reject dualism on its own level. That would miss the
point completely. These dualisms - between subject and object, inside and
outside, Left and Right - will still arise, and are SUPPOSED to arise. Those
dualities are the very mechanism of manifestation. Spirit - the the pure
immediate suchness of reality - manifests as a subject and an object and in
both singular and plural forms - in other words, Spirit manifests as all
four quadrants, And we aren't supposed to simply evaporate those quadrants -
they are the radiant glory of Spirit's manifestation. But we are supposed to
see through them to their Source, their suchness." KW P236
I think that both Pirsig and Wilber take the view that its a big mistake to
think that mystics are somehow exempt from morality and responsibility, that
they can just disengage from the world and rise above it all. As Pirsig
says, "everything, not just life, is an ethical activity. It is nothing
else".
Emphasis is Wilber's....
"At the same time, all of this occurs within some very strong ethical
frameworks, and you are not simply allowed to play Dharma Bums and call that
being Nondual. In most traditions, in fact, you have to master the first
three stages of transpersonal development before you will even be allowed to
talk about the fourth or Nondual state. "Crazy Wisdom" occurs in a very
strict ethical framework. But the important point is that in the Nondual
traditions, you take a vow, a very sacred vow, which is the foundation of
all of your training, and the vow is that YOU WILL NOT DISAPPEAR INTO
CESSATON - you will NOT hide out in nirvana, you will not evaporate in
nirodh, you will not abandon the world by tucking youself into nirvikalpa."
KW P239
This has always been true in myths as well. The hero's task is not only to
learn the secrets, but also to return to the ordinary world in order to
instruct and inform it. The hero who fails to return has failed completely.
He has failed to take the sacred vow. At the same time, it does seem that
the mystic is often endowed with a kind of morality that is beyond
conventional social codes, but that's only because her moral development has
surpassed the need for such exterior values. The mystic knows better than
the cop or preacher. It comes from within and is therefore more authentic.
This is behind the idea that painting a perfect picture is easy. First you
perfect yourself, then you just paint naturally. Morality is like that too.
At the mysitcal level it flows out of your being natually and requires no
instruction or coersion. But we have to be careful not to confuse that with
the anti-social and anti-intellectual Hippie version of Zen.
Pirsig on Zen...
"The revolutionaries of the sixties thought that since both (DQ and biology)
are anti-social and since both are anti-intellectual, why then they must
both be the same. That was the mistake. American writing on Zen during this
period showed this confusion. Zen was often thought to be a sort of innocent
"anything goes". If you did anything you pleased, without regard for social
restraint, at the exact moment you pleased to do it, that would express your
Buddha-nature. To Japanese Zen masters coming to this country this must have
seemed really strange. Japanese Zen is attached to social disciplines so
meticulous they make the Puritans look almost degenerate." Pirsig 303
This brand of Zen is nothing more than Nihilism with some exotic spices
added to fool you. Now here's where is gets a little more interesting and
specific...
>From Ken Wilber's THE MARRIAGE OF SENSE AND SOUL...
"What seems to be missing in most of the attempts to integrate science and
religion is a deep discussion of its political dimensions. For modern
science is part and parcel of the liberal Enlightenment and the
differentiations of modernity, differentiations that brought with them the
rise of the representative democracies, universal human rights, and the
ideas of freedom and equality of all individuals, which in turn gave rise to
everything from the abolition of slavery to feminism. Modern science was an
integral part of this differentiated worldspace, in which those freedoms,
values and rights arose, and thus to talk genuinely and deeply of the
integration of science and religion is to talk, sooner or later, of
politics." KW P210
This liberal Enlightenment is very much in line with what Pirsig describes
as intellectual values. These static patterns are enlightening, liberating,
evolutionary and revolutionary. These static patterns need to be transparent
as much as lower level patterns do, and if they grow stale and die they can
become a hinderance and a prison. But for the most part, they're still quite
fresh. They're still speading and there is plenty of reason to think that
they need to be defended against reactionary forces. I think its a huge
mistake to reject intellectual values as an unreal illusion. In fact, that's
the real problem with SOM, where only matter matters.
Emphasis is Wilber's...
"Thus, genuine spiritual experience (or spiritual Enlightenment) as it
displays itself in the political arena is not prerational mythic belief but
rather as transrational awareness, which, BUILDING ON THE GAINS OF LIBERAL
RATIONALITY AND POLITICAL LIBERALISM, extends those freedoms from the
political to the spiritual sphere. Thus, spiritual or transrational
awareness accepts the general tenets of rational political liberalism (not
prerational mythic reactionism), but then, within those freedoms, pursues
spiritual Enlightenment in its own case; and through the powers of advocacy
and example, encourages others to use their liberal freeedom - the
Enlightenment of the West - in order to persue spiritual freedom - the
Enlightenment of the East." KW 212
This integration of science and religion is the integration of East and
West. It integrates static and Dynamic, political freedom and spiritual
freedom, and intellectual quality with Dynamic quality. So, follow the
author's example. Calm down. Dig in. Do some static latching. But for God's
sake, don't drop out. There is no contradiction between spirituality and
political activism. Quite the contrary. There's no contradiction between
moral outrage and Enlightenment. Quite the contrary.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 - 16:02:12 BST