Roger finally responds to Rob on mysticism vs intellect.
To Rob, with reference to Ken and subject matter of possible interest to
Horse, David, Fintan and all others following this thread:
Rob Wrote:
"Because the MOQ tells one to do what is experienced to be right, one can not
test the MOQ against experience. All we have is experience, so the MOQ adds
nothing to it. Furthermore, meditation reveals the truth much
better than thinking about levels, because meditation causes us to be more
sensitive to reality (quality) than when the mind holds a pre-judgement."
Roger now finally writes a long response:
Thank you for the probing questions and the chance to grow intellectually. I
am not going to try to defend the MOQ (yet), because I sense the real nature
of your concern is with the benefits of intellectual knowledge vs mystical
experience. To a great extent, I see you as the polar opposite to Ken Clark.
Ken has repeatedly rejected the mystical path and embraced the path of unity
in the ‘external world’ via intellect and "many truths". You have of course
recently argued that the path to unity is through ‘internal’, intuitive,
mystical, direct experience. I believe these are two sides of one coin, and
that the best course is to pursue both.
You mention that you draw inspiration from Krishnamurti, so in my answer, I
will draw from two sources…. Kitaro Nishida – a buddhist monk and philosopher
who I wrote about last month, and the theory of autopoiesis – which I also
often refer to in my posts.
Allow me to start with the Zen philosopher Nishida who was influenced strongly
by William James. Early in the century, he wrote "AN INQUIRY INTO THE GOOD",
which I suspect was a major Pirsig influence. Much of the book is on the
relationship between knowledge and mystical experience. Allow me to quote:
"People usually think that knowledge and love are entirely different mental
activities. To me, they are fundamentally the same. This activity is the
union of subject and object….this is possible only when we unite with pure
objectivity."
"The history of the advance of learning over the past several thousand years
traces the path by which human beings have discarded subjectivity and pursued
objectivity."
He goes on to explain that love and knowledge are results of each other and
that …"there is neither subject nor object, but only the true union of subject
and object."
Love is the power by which we grasp ultimate reality. Love is the deepest
knowledge of things…..we can reach reality only through love. Love is the
culmination of knowledge."
"Thinking is the process by which a great system of consciousness develops and
actualizes itself"
"….intuition thus underlies thinking. Thinking is a type of system, and at
its base there must be an intuition of unity."
By intuition, he means direct mystical experience. He clarifies that to know
or will something is to intuit the oneness. He believes that reality is
composed by the conflict between differentiation and unity. Direct experience
creates ‘objective knowledge’, which unites with our ‘great system’ to enlarge
and advance us toward greater unity and freedom. "Knowledge of course includes
freedom and signifies possibility," he writes.
Using a different vocabulary, Nishida basically comes to similar conclusions
as Pirsig does 70 years later. Direct experience and intellectual quality
lead to higher DQ and freedom. One final point on Nishida, he reminds us that
thinking can be directly experienced too. Thinking connects two or more
experiences, and is directly experienced itself. In this way, there is a
geometrical progression to the experience of thinking…..creating an ever
larger universe of experience.
Rob, you mentioned how much clearer everything is after you meditate. I
believe Nishida would say that meditation allows you to discard much of your
subjectiveness , to get in touch with the unity of yourself/universe, and that
it positions you to think and grow in your unity.
Now let me shift to a completely different source of inspiration – the theory
of autopoiesis by Maturana and Varela. According to this theory, life is self
forming and knowledge is a measure of an organism’s ability to adapt. As
with Pirsig and Nishida, the originators of this theory believe that direct
experience forms the system which defines subject and object.
In rough terms, the experience which creates or completes a self formative
system is that which is valued. As the system forms, experience (defined as
change) that continues and advances the system’s organization is valued.
Damaging experiences are of course avoided.
Even the most primitive bacteria value such experiences as light or dark,
heat or cold, and they actively align with it, adjusting their structure and
organization. This ability defines life and knowledge. Per the authors, this
‘value’ process where systems pursue their own continuation and extension
‘brings forth the world’. Life is basically an adaptive, systemic coupling
with the universe. The universe and the life form are unity. That which does
not affect/change/create the pattern does not exist.
Per Varela and Maturana, intellectual knowledge comes about through language,
and our ability to use this skill to objectify the world and ourselves within
it. Language allows us to connect and learn to adapt to experience and to
share experiences and adaptations with others. Language is responsible for
redefining our species over the past few million years, and societies ability
to store and communicate knowledge is responsible for the rapid advance over
the past few millennia. Our extension of knowledge extends the boundaries of
the universe and improves our flexibility, freedom, potential and
adaptiveness.
In summary, I believe all three sources (the two I mention and Pirsig) point
to the same conclusions. Direct experience and intellectual knowledge are
both necessary for growth toward Dynamic Quality. Mystical, pure
undifferentiated experience is DQ, but intellectual advancement(a form of DQ)
enlarges the universe that is experienced. Mystical experience and
intellectual advancement are two self re-enforcing dimensions of the path.
Direct experience is depth, knowledge is breadth.
Both Nishida and Pirsig mention that the perfect example of unfiltered
experience is a new-born baby. However, neither recommends this as an ideal.
At the other extreme are the people with an abundance of knowledge, but that
have lost sight of pure experience.Their knowledge becomes subjective and they
atrophy. The combination is the true path. Depth with breadth.
Thank you for prompting me to extend my universe. Any further prods are much
appreciated.
Roger Parker
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:52 BST