From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Dec 14 2002 - 19:03:58 GMT
Sam and all:
Sam said:
I've been doing some work on neo-Platonism, and it is remarkable how strong
the continuities of thought are between Pirsig and someone like Plotinus.
Pirsig - or is it Phaedrus? - does seem to fit neatly into the mainstream of
Western 'philosophical mysticism', although he has changed and tweaked
things. (Mainly due to incorporating an evolutionary perspective, I think.)
DMB says:
Right, but Neo-Platonism is just one of many forms within the
mystical/romantic tradition. The quote about Plato being "the eternal
Buddha-seeker" that appears in every generation refers to a constant battle
that spans our whole history. Ever since those fateful days in Ancient
Greece, there has been a continuing battle between the Platonists and the
Aristotelians, between the mystics and the mechanics, idealists and
materialists, hipsters and squares. In MOQ terms, it is a battle between
Dynamic and static quality. (This battle is intertwined and interrelated
with, but not the same as the battle between the third and fourth levels.
This clash occurs at both levels.) I think what Pirsig has added to this old
dance is something like a reconciliation between the two. He's a mystic who
finds the Buddha in the detailed facts of the world.
Sam said:
The 'church fathers' (early Christian mystics, eg Origen, culminating in
Dionysius) worked out of a neo-Platonic background, but became distinctly
different; in particular they developed a detailed critique of 'intellect'
in the neo-Platonic sense. The 'One' and 'God' are radically different. In
particular, the One doesn't care if you approach it or not; the journey of
philosophical mysticism is 'from the alone to the Alone'. Needless to say
the God of christian mysticism, met in the cloud of unknowing (and through
the liturgy), is rather different. That's where I'm coming from.
DMB says:
The One doesn't care if you approach it or not? If I understand what's
between the lines here, you're saying that the mystical One is impersonal
and different than God, which IS personal and does care if you approach it
or not. Is this the premise you're not quite saying? I'm not sure what to do
with this. As I understand it, the ONE has been called many things, but all
these names, symbols and metaphors always refer to the ONE. I think our
disagreement, mystical experience verses liturgical conformation to God,
correlates to the age old battle between the Platonists and the
Aristotelians. In addition there is a difference in our understandings of
the levels. Perhaps your addmission that your perspective is somewhere
between the 3rd and 4th levels is also related to the distinction you make
between the One and God. Are you not taking mythical symbols for actualities
and putting them before the mystery to which they refer? That's is
overstating it perhaps, but this is the impression I get. Naturally, I hope
to dissuade you of this, not to rob you of your traditions or trash Anglican
theology, but so that they both will become transparent. I think a good sign
post to DQ is something that we see through. We don't focus on the myths,
rituals or liturgies as objects of contemplation, but use them as windows.
As I understand it, Pirsig's MOQ has no problem with rituals or any static
forms, its just the stale one's that block out the light and cause the rot.
Don't give up on me yet. Its easy to get irritated with my cocky style and
arrogant voice, but its actually motivated by a genuine passion and concern
for this issues. Clearly, you also care deeply about it. You've devoted your
life to it. This is what we have in common; we both think it matters.
Sam said:
As time goes on, I become less and less a 'MoQite'. An intriguing start
anyhow. I look forward to the next bit.
DMB says:
Its not important that you become a 'MOQite'. In fact, this reading of
history as a battle between Platonists and Aristotelians is far from unique
to Pirsig and can be understood outside the MOQ. It just that his take is a
nice, comprehenisve, overall picture. I've read about these same issues from
the perspective of psychologists, mythologists, mystics, historians,
theologians and more. Its huge. But I think its important to grapple with
what Pirsig says about it not only because of the big picture he paints, his
metaphysical framework, but he also provides us with a common language, so
to speak. :-)
Quotes from the GUIDEBOOK: (Emphasis is the author's)
"In the spiritual traditions of both East and West - I am thinking not about
particular religions, but about the mystical element to be found in them all
- we find the claim that eventually one must let go of the activities of
thought and imagination in order to enter region of consciousness that such
symbolic activity cannot reach." (P22)
"I want to say, in brief, that the ultimate journey taken by Phaedrus and
described by the narrator was the MYSTICAL self, ... Mysticism is always
associated with some sort of unitive consciousness, a consciousness
experientially united with ultimate reality." P26)
"Mystical experience is the base from which one lives in fuller union with
everything and everyone, doing what ordinary people do but with a adicall
transformed and transforming consciousness." (P27)
"Whatever nuance the language of union is given, if there is to be talk of
mysticism, some sort of deep union must be involved. It perhaps cannot be
emphasized enough that to speak of mysticism is to speak of an EXPERIENCE of
union and not merely speculations about union. The experience is so precisou
that one who has had a taste of it..." (P27)
From page 25 of ZAMM:
"At the moment of pure Quality, subject and object are identical."
"Philosophical mysticism, the idea that truth is indefinable and can be
apprehended only by non-rational means, has been with us since the beginning
of history." (ZAMM P 207)
"The One in India has got to be the same as the One in Greece. If its not,
you've got two. The only disagreements among the monists concern the
attributes of the One, not the One itself. Since the One is the source of
all things and includes all things in it, it cannot be defined in terms of
those things, since no matter what thing you use to define it, the thing
will always describe something less than the One itself. The One can only be
described allegorically, through the use of analogy, of figures of
imagination and speech." (ZAMM P349)
"Dialectic, which is the parent of logic, came itself from rhetoric.
Rhetoric in turn is the child of the myths and poetry of ancient Greece.
That is true historically, and by the application of common sense. The
poetry and myths are the response of a prehistoric people to the universe
arojnd them made on the basis of Quality. It is Qulaity, not dialectic,
which is the generator if everything we know." (ZAMM P354)
"Then even "he" disappears and only the dream of himself remains with
himself in it. And the Quality, the arete he has fought so hard for, has
sacrificed for, has NEVER betrayed, but in all that time has never once
understood, now makes itself clear to him and his soul is at rest." (ZAMM
P359)
I'll add these quotes to the ones I sent yesterday and cook something up.
But they almost stand up all by themselves, don't they?
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 14 2002 - 19:04:39 GMT