Hullo Platt, Wim, Scott.
PLATT: "I noticed Scott said that map/territory "is ultimately as a bogus as
the distinction between subject and object" and John B. agreed."
Did I? If so, don't hold me to it.
I am struggling at the moment with the perspective that Scott and Wim put
foreward that there is nothing outside 'quality'. While I have found Gary's
struggle with the map/territory issue rather too concrete for my liking, I
still think that there is a risk of falling into a sort of idealism, which
for want of a better word I would call 'valuism'. Where idealism takes the
position that every 'thing' is an idea (in your 'mind', which is itself an
idea, and so on), 'valuism' asserts that every 'thing' we 'know' is value,
or quality. Like idealism, it is not possible to find a satisfying logical
refutation; rather, we need to ask if the perspective of valuism leads to
any resolution of our existential angst. In Buddhist terms, does 'valuism'
relieve suffering?
To clarify a little where I am pointing, I accept that pain is an inevitable
feature of our being, while suffering is unnecessary painful experience, in
that it is not a necessary component of experience, but is in some way
illusory, or 'self' induced. The mystic relieves suffering through attending
to what is in the moment, without seeking to impose any egoic values upon
it. In a phrase, he lets the situation dictate. This focus tends to
eliminate both hope and fear, which are time bound emotions.
But a metaphysics is just another way to think about reality, and this is
its weakness. I find it highly unlikely that any conceptual shift will lead
to enlightenment. Hameed Ali, writing from the mystic perspective, talks
about basic trust. He says
"To understand basic trust in action, we need to distinguish it from the
ego's tendency toward inertia and inactivity. To have basic trust does not
imply that you don't act. It does not mean that if someone is pointing a gun
at you, you don't do anything to defend yourself. It means that you trust
your impulse to run - you trust your inherent intelligent functioning.
Likewise, trusting that the universe will take care of you does not mean
that you stay in bed all day. The universe will take care of you by making
you get up and tend to your business. The universe unfolds in an optimal
way, and part of that unfoldment happens through you and your actions."
"All work on oneself is necessary because one's basic trust is not complete
... Since our basic trust is not complete, we fight, resist, and struggle;
and then we need practices and teachings to see that our struggle is
fruitless and is actually the problem ... all we need to do is to quit
struggling with ourselves and with reality .... enlightenment is not a
matter of not feeling pain, but of not fighting it." (A.H. Almaas, Facets of
Unity, pp28, 29)
So my perception of the issue facing us as human beings is that of
minimising suffering through attending to what is, focusing on our
experience, including pain. This is initially a difficult task, since the
ego warps experience, and we need to find a way to cleanse the doors of
perception. ("If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would
appear to man as it is, infinite." William Blake) I do not think that the
MOQ greatly assists this process.
On your specific point, Platt, I find that Pirsig has been careful not to
suggest that the world of subjects and objects is imaginary, or unreal, but
rather that it is a useful model, at one level, though not fundamental. He
puts the experience of quality at the centre, and the perception of objects
as one way of static latching that experience. It is valid and useful if not
unduly privileged. Without our experiences of ourselves as subjects in a
world of objects, there could be no development of language, and without
language there could be no MOQ.
Likewise a mystic such as Ali does not deny pain, for example, or "you and
your actions", but asserts that enlightenment is "to quit struggling with
ourselves and with reality". Finding the basic trust to just be with
reality, rather than constantly attempting to change it, is the mystic path.
At this point in my life I am more interested in exploring this possibility
than in interminably debating the MOQ.
So even if Wim and Scott are correct, I don't find that helpful. I have used
the map/terrain metaphor a lot, and don't have a problem with that.
Likewise, I recognise it has limits, especially if we take the terrain to
mean a world as explained by twentieth century science, which all too often
is what we mean. But saying that all is quality, experience of value, is
also just words about what is, and ultimately no more helpful than any
metaphysics. The emptiness at the heart of such a view appals me. It is not
significantly different to memetics, except that meme theory recognises that
some memes may be actually harmful to humans, while at the same time seeing
humans as more or less collections of memes. The internal contradiction in
this seems to elude those who speak this way. {If humans are 'just'
collections of memes, it is hard to see how we might identify what it means
to be 'harmful' to such a collection.}
If all is quality, is value, then nothing is changed, resolved, or
clarified. A rose is a rose is a rose, as the saying goes. The initial
attraction of Pirsig's work was his claim that understanding the MOQ
resulted in useful clarification of our moral options in the world. This has
proven a chimera, but it pointed in a valid direction. The formal
metaphysical position of deleting persons, or recognising them as just some
sort of evolutionary value constellation, in constant flux, is fine so long
as you ignore suffering. But I would argue that suffering is a fundamental
experience for human beings, and a metaphysics is no solution. 'Valuism' is
ultimately a nihilism.
I shall probably take a break from this forum, since even though I enjoy the
intellectual jousting and the opportunity it has given me to refine and
clarify my own thoughts, I no longer find this important enough to be satisf
ying. Thanks for the engagement and the debates.
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 - 16:06:23 BST