Hi John,
The following statement struck me:
[John]: > I cannot agree that Pirsig's static quality hierarchy is so
structured that
> it includes everything in experience except dynamic quality. The
categories
> are not discrete. The 'social' level is then (in my opinion) something of
a
> pseudo level, dealing with moral quality, as is clearly the
'intellectual',
> which has to cover the experience of quality in both art and science.
GARY'S Response: I'm not sure what you mean by "Pirsig's static quality
hierarchy ...everything...except dynamic quality." It seems odd to me that
you do not recognize "All life is a migration of static patterns of quality
toward Dynamic Quality." [pg 139 chap 11 of Lila] "A Dynamic advance is
meaningless unless it can find some static pattern with which to protect
itself from degeneration back to the conditions that existed before the
advance was made." [pg 146, chap 11 Lila]. Which is why I call DQ both the
Ground of Being and the Goal of Being. Out of DQ comes all stable static
patterns evolving upward towards the ability to once more connect with DQ.
DQ is the flux, the movement, the directive force behind the creation of
Static Patterns. Thus DQ is never a level it is the reason behind all
levels and the alpha & omega of all levels.
Why do you say "social level ...a pseudo level"? Perhaps because you are
limiting it to only "dealing with moral quality." Pirsig, focusing on
humans, sees the interactivities of humans to be very significant. Hence
the Social level. It is a place of interaction and a result of activities
of human beings different from the Q-Intellectual level.
And as I have demonstrated in today's post on the consciousness thread to
Scott, the Q-Intellectual level is not pseudo either but is the level of the
individual mind.
So, I'm a bit puzzled. But, perhaps jumping into the middle and not having
proper background is why I am confused.
A few more comments follow...
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: John Beasley <beasley@austarnet.com.au>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: MD Personal Spirituality
> Hullo Rod,
>
> A very interesting topic. I hate talking about my spirituality since the
> word is so mired with 'airy-fairy' 'religious' connotations, on one side,
> and mindless 'new age' associations on the other, that the moment it is
used
> it seems necessary to defend it by explaining that I don't mean either.
This
> seems to be something like your experience, too.
>
> The problem is that there does not seem to be an acceptable alternative,
at
> least in English. While I see a large overlap between the realm of
'quality'
> and the realm of spirituality, they are hardly synonyms. If anyone can
come
> up with an appropriate term and weave it into a story about Zen and such
> like, there should be a small fortune to be made from it.
>
> In very broad terms I see 'spiritual' as shorthand for the highest level
of
> quality I can encounter. This goes against a tendency in the MOQ to see
> dynamic quality as homogeneous, and hence not something that can be
> discriminated into higher and lower levels, but I have long argued that
this
> is simplistic. Dynamic quality operates differently at the different
static
> levels. For example, at the level of the biological organism, it is all
> about finding food, shelter and mates, and avoiding predators and harmful
> environments. These values are generally 'hard-wired' into the neural
> systems of the organisms, including ourselves. And at this level Pirsig's
> assumption that whatever is without quality, be that high or low value
> quality, cannot be experienced, holds true. Our perceptual systems are
> 'quality-seeking' structures at this biological level. However, the fact
> that I can attend to the capital H that begins this sentence is in my view
> sufficient evidence that Pirsig's assumption is not valid at other levels.
>
> I cannot agree that Pirsig's static quality hierarchy is so structured
that
> it includes everything in experience except dynamic quality. The
categories
> are not discrete. The 'social' level is then (in my opinion) something of
a
> pseudo level, dealing with moral quality, as is clearly the
'intellectual',
> which has to cover the experience of quality in both art and science.
> However as I discover the higher levels of morality, art and knowledge
> (including scientific knowledge), I begin to sense that these are in some
> way 'pointing' to a higher (or deeper, take your choice)reality that is
very
> different to the conventional view of our world, which is fundamentally
> logical positivism. Wilber suggests that the three spheres of science,
> morality and art refer to the general dimensions of 'it', of 'we' and of
> 'I'. In 'A Brief History of Everything' he suggests that as transformation
> occurs in each of these dimensions, because Spirit manifests equally in
> each, "then we can describe Spirit subjectively as one's own Buddha-mind -
> the 'I' of Spirit, the Beauty. And we can describe Spirit objectively as
> Dharma - the 'It' of Spirit, the ultimate Truth. And we can describe
Spirit
> culturally as Sangha - the 'We' of Spirit, the ultimate Good." (pp
133 -134)
>
> Wilber's comments on Whitehead, which I have twice posted in this forum
> without much response, seem very relevant to this issue. So I'll repeat
the
> core bit agian.
>
> Whitehead "said that if you want to know the general principles of
> existence, you must start at the top and use the highest occasions to
> illumine the lowest, not the other way around, which of course is the
common
> reductionist reflex. So he said you could learn more about the world from
> biology than you could from physics; and so he introduced the organismic
> viewpoint which has revolutionized philosophy. And he said you could learn
> more from social psychology than from biology, and then introduced the
> notion of things being a society of occasions - the notion of compound
> individuality. Naturally, he held that the apex of exemplary pattern was
> God, and it was in God, the ultimate compound individual, that you would
> ground any laws or patterns found reflected in reduced versions in the
lower
> dimensions of psychology, then biology, then physics. The idea, which was
> brilliant in its statement, was that you first look to the higher levels
for
> the general principles of existence, and then, by subtraction, you see how
> far down the hierarchy they extend. You don't start at the bottom and try
to
> move up by addition of the lower parts, because some of the higher parts
> simply don't show up very well, or at all, on the lower rungs. Perhaps his
> favourite examples were creativity and love - God, for Whitehead, was
> especially love and creativity. But in the lower dimensions, the
creativity
> gets reduced, appearing in humans as a modicum of free will but being
almost
> entirely lost by the time you get to atomic particles... So Whitehead, by
> looking to illuminate the lower by the higher, and not vice versa, could
> make creativity the general principle, and then understand determinism as
a
> partial restriction or reduction of primary creativity. If, on the other
> hand, you start at the bottom, then you have to figure out a way to get
free
> will and creativity out of rocks, and it just won't work."
>
> If we take this approach of Whitehead's seriously, spirituality is my
> experience of the highest levels of quality, which in turn illuminate all
> other knowledge. Wilber also speaks of a Basic Moral Intuition, which he
> states as "Protect and promote the greatest depth for the greatest span".
He
> believes that this is "the actual form of spiritual intuition". (op cit
> p335)
GARY: yes to your references to Wilber and Whitehead. Mysticism is similar
to science in that it is an act of discovery. Mystic knowledge is different
than mathematical or other scientific knowledge. Hmm. I would have to
think harder on this. A quick remark it seems a difference is that Mystic
knowledge generally doesn't let itself be tested or challenged.
>
> If the mystics, as I understand them, are correct, then mysticism is
closer
> to science than to religion. Mystic knowledge is in principle not
different
> to, say, mathematical knowledge. Both are acquired and tested in similar
> ways. Hence I would want to separate spirituality from religion. However
> Wilber points out that the deeper or higher or more encompassing
motivations
> are not just lying around awaiting discovery through our senses or their
> extensions - they require transformations in our consciousness or being.
So
> mystic truth is not just a matter of learning more facts, or even new ways
> of thought, valuable though these may be. One of my arguments with much of
> the 'spiritual' critique that goes on in this forum, including the
judgment
> that people are either MOQ or SOM 'thinkers', is that these seem to be
> learned patterns that are not necessarily the outcome of a
transformational
> praxis. However I could be wrong about this. The experiential core of Bo's
> SOLAQI concept may not be very different to mysticism, though he might
> vehemently deny it.
>
> After all this theoretical background, you asked for "each of your own
views
> on spirituality". Well, you have my views, but I suspect what you may have
> also wanted was more of my experience. This is mainly non-mystic and hence
> heavily influenced by prior learning, rather than immediate perception of
> value, though my current process is an attempt to redress this balance.
>
> Beauty is obviously important to my work as a sculptor. Like quality, it
is
> not to be defined. On the rare occasions when I perceive great beauty in a
> work of art, or the natural world, I am greatly moved by it. I am also
aware
> that often my cultural background becomes a significant part of the
> experience. The beauty arises from the perception of the object within the
> framework by which I identify beauty. It is partly given, partly learned.
>
> Truth also is undefinable. My 'inbuilt crap detector' is important as a
> guide to truth, but it too is constructed from past experience. I find
that
> I am energised when my reading or speaking expands my understanding of
'what
> is', particularly when previously unrelated or conflicting understandings
> are brought together into a new harmony.
>
> Moral good is something I experience intensely, especially in its absence,
> as in injustice. I encounter a real paradox here with the mystic valuing
of
> immediacy and how this relates to matters of justice. I have not resolved
> this issue which continues to plague me.
>
> I'm sure you didn't expect this sort of response when you suggested this
was
> a 'lighter' topic.
>
> Regards,
>
> 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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:17 BST