Roger
I think I've left your post about Capra and Pirsig on my office computer
so I'll just have to respond from memory. Apologies for any
misrepresentation.
>From what I recall you were interested in Capra's explanation of the
dynamic reality as (to simplify it) the Buddhists' "universal flux".
Which, as Capra points out, is similar to physicists' understanding of
matter on account of wave-particle duality and the unification of space
and time.
Some things:
I'm not convinced that Capra has characterized Eastern mysticism
correctly. Enlightenment (or dynamic quality) is something that you can
experience and perhaps describe to a certain extent, but you can't say
precisely what it is. Buddhists shirk away from writing for fear of
confusing the words with the real thing. (Of couse we need to use words
to talk and that's okay as long as you don't forget that they are only
tools.) I would say that yes, to be enlightened is to go with the flux,
but it isn't also to not go with the flux? (are you still out there
donny palmgren? your assistance is required here)
To understand dynamic quality I would point to Pirsig's stories: the
brujo, the song on the radio and the man waking up after a heart attack;
Platt Holden's "Say Hello to Now" and Lorenz Gude's "Dharmakaya light".
If you can relate to these experiences then you can identify the feeling
of dynamic quality that Pirsig is talking about. Perhaps there are
similarities but I cannot see any solid rationale that shows that is the
same as the universal flux that physicists talk about.
I don't have time to read Capra's Tao over again but if I recall
correctly Pirsig's conception of Dynamic Quality is slightly different
from Capra's. Pirsig makes an effort to point out the primary mystic
experience of Dynamic Quality. Capra only refers to the conceptual idea
of it. It's a subtle difference, but if you ignore Pirsig's song on the
radio then why study him at all?
And the last thing is: we are really scraping around in the dark here.
What we (or I at any rate) know about quantum theory is only certain
scientists' *interpretations* of numbers. Theories such as the many
worlds are still just theories. I'm not saying they're not worth
studying - they most certainly are - but we have to be careful not to
treat them as gospel. If the MoQ isn't consistent with the current pop
science theory of the month, don't throw away the MoQ because it might
be the physicists that are wrong.
I probably sound like a wet blanket, but if you're going to advocate
such ideas, I think someone had better speak up for the devil;) These
are very difficult questions and the way to proceed is slowly.
I noticed that Pirsig has actually commented on this in Anthony's essay:
"I have seen popular books on this subject: The Tao of Physics, The
Dancing Wu Li Masters, that seem rather eager to jump from an
observation of similarity to a statement of identity. But be careful to
follow the scientific rule of saying no more than you really know. My
personal belief, from talking to physicists and trying to gauge their
level of understanding of Buddha's world is that they don't know
anything." (letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, March 29th,
1997)
(Sorry I don't have time to reply to all the posts. Lithien and Horse -
suggest you read the brujo story again for reasons why you should care
for the unwashed masses; the rest of you - there are not enough hours in
a day.)
Diana
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST