Hullo Erin,
Isn't it wonderful that the originator of a MOQ is here to answer your
queries in person? [Tongue firmly in cheek]
Erin: "I can't tell whether people are arguing whether MOQ is the bridge
between east and west OR MOQ is a description of the east for those
raised in the west. Are SOM and MOQ both intellectual patterns"?
As you can see in my post to Bo, I argue that the MOQ is Western in
structure and in many of its underlying assumptions, but does indeed 'point'
to an Eastern understanding of what is. This leads to some pretty big
paradoxes, but any discussion of the higher levels, in Wilberese, or the
dynamic, in Pirsigese, is bound to lead to paradox.
But your "Are SOM and MOQ both intellectual patterns?" question is right on
the mark. I say yes. Despite Bo's disgust with the term, they are mental
maps of reality. They have an instrumental value insofar as they help in our
survival. They can however become impediments to immediate experience. You
remember the 'Cleveland harbour' effect. The map becomes more real than the
terrain. While I would argue that the MOQ is a better map than the SOM, it
too is inadequate, as Pirsig admits, and in ways that I doubt Pirsig can
see. One inadequacy is to pander to the Church of Reason, and to try to put
an 'Eastern' understanding of reality (It's not really Eastern, though the
word gives a bit of the flavour of the difference - it is actually more a
mystic understanding) into a Western academic straitjacket. Another is to
get caught up in definitions, and the black/white polarities that bedevil
all defining. This is more difficult to assess, but it is a fundamental
issue for the mystic, and when Pirsig tries to use a 'rational' set of
structures to develop his understanding of the dynamic, it creates all sorts
of meta-meta-problems.
But the worst omission is the lack of recognition of the complexity of human
perception. When Blake talks about "cleansing the doors of perception", he
is indicating that what I perceive and what is may be quite different. When
I work as a therapist I see this constantly. The question of "what is good"
is a much more difficult question than the prologue to ZMM would suggest.
The quote from Almaas in my response to Bo points to this same area. I think
this is where the really difficult, but interesting, issues arise. But it's
a game. If there really was a "Beasley's MOQ", I wouldn't want to take it
too seriously. It would simply be the exploration of issues arising at a
particular stage of personal development of the author, and would hopefully
have changed substantially within a few years.
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 - 16:02:15 BST