From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Dec 29 2002 - 20:21:48 GMT
Mari and all would-be Pirsigists:
Life, like a dome of many-colored glass,
Stains the white radiance of eternity. (Shelly)
David had said:
Its all Quality. The creator is DQ and the creation is SQ, so to speak. The
evolutionary morality of conflicting static patterns makes sense in a larger
context where Dynamic Quality is the source and goal of these migrating
static patterns.
Mari replied: Okay David, here is an example of my need to ask for clarity.
i
don't think i'm taking anything out of context that distorts the whole of
what you are trying to convey. Help me visualize the creator as DQ and the
creation as SQ.
DMB says:
I'd love to help. The statement is heavy with terms known only to those who
have read Lila. It is also something like a summary of what I've been saying
througout this thread and for a long time before that. If that's not enough,
what I'm talking about is a philosophical description of a mystical reality.
I dare say this ain't kid stuff. And at this point I should confess that I
cringed while reading your concerns about "intimidation" and "the highbrow
air that is not very welcoming". At the risk of flattering myself, I'd like
to take some of the blame and say, 'sorry about that'. Its just that this
stuff isn't easy. It a struggle. Its at the summit of a mountain. Its the
oldest idea and the biggest secret. But, again, I'd love to help. I
sincerely believe, as with most things, the challenge is proportional to the
reward. I mean, "ignorant sluts" like Jane wouldn't stand a chance. Just
kidding. Anyway....
Mari continued:
As i'm reading your words attempting to make sense of what it is you're
saying, i come to that statement and i stop....a picture pops into my head
that does not square with that statement. Let me tell you why. The statement
is too static. Too defintie. Too absolute as i understand creator/creation.
Where does creator and creation seperate?
DMB says:
I'm not sure how to address the "too static, definite and absolute" problem,
but maybe I can help to start the visualization of DQ and SQ by saying
something about the relationship between them. Maybe it would help if I put
it in less exclusive terms, in terms that anyone can look up in a
dictionary. And I should certainly begin by provideing a clear idea what
Pirsig means by DQ and SQ. He says that when we identify Dynamic Quality
(DQ) with religious mysticism it produces an avalanche of information as to
what Dynamic Quality is. (This is why I have found if useful to identify the
Sophists as Orphic priests, who initiated people into religious mysticism.)
Pirsig also refers to his metaphysical system as an intellectual description
of a mystical reality. This is what I'm getting at in refering to DQ as the
creator, as "God", as the ONE, as the ground of all being. As such, DQ is
beyond definition. It will always remain a mystery because it is beyond
reality as we know it. Our senses are limited to this world, which is made
entirely of static Quality (SQ). Everything you could ever sense or imagine
is static Quality. Pirsig says his levels of static quality are exhaustive
and includes everything in the encyclopedia from A to Z. This is the
creation, the world, the universe and reality as we know it. We're made of
it and use it to describe what we're made of. It includes every thing, every
atom in every galaxy that's ever been and the very thoughts and words we use
to talk about all that. DQ and SQ are related in more complex ways than I'm
capable of addressing, but one of the central ideas in Pirsig's system is
that DQ drives the evolution of SQ, of the world. This is what I mean by
saying DQ is the creator and SQ is the creation. And your final question
really gets at this issue...
Mari quoted DMB:
"I mean, there is truth to the idea that spiritual growth is a kind of
ascent toward "God", but it is also true that this world is a manifestation
of this
same "God".
To which Mari added:
If the world is a manifestation of God then it too is DQ not SQ. It's like
a hologram as i see it: no matter how much you divide it into parts the
whole is always present with-in the part. SQ is another story ; )
DMB says:
I'm not too familiar with the holographic universe, but I think its slightly
related. The idea that the whole is always present in each part squares
nicely, I think, with the idea that everything is a manifestation of the
ONE. This is what the poets like Blake refer to when they see the world in a
tiny grain of sand. Ultimately, in religious mysticism, the creator and the
creation are not seperate, they are one and the same. That's why Pirsig's
system is not really a duality. In spite of the fact that there are two
distinct KINDS of Quality, static and Dynamic, and that static quality is
further divided into four levels, its all Quality. Its all One. Let's turn
to some of the professionals for help with these issues. It'll help us see
the relationship between DQ and SQ, but without all the lingo. To describe
it in other words, in Schopenhauer's words...
"It is what is innermost, the kernal of each individual thing and equally of
the whole. It is manifest in every blindly working force of nature; it is
manifest also in the considered deeds of men; the great difference between
these two being merely a matter of the level of manifestation, not the
essence of what is made manifest."
He call this innermost thing the will (die Wille), but is careful to
distinguish it from the forces of cause and effect, one's mere wishes or
something trivial like that. In fact Joseph Campbell compares this concept
of will with Eastern concepts...
"One recognizes immediately the relationship of his Schopenhauerian concept
of the will to the Indian idea of the BRAHMAN, which is identical with the
ATMAN, the self of all beings. ("Thou art that") The will, as BRAHMAN,
transcends the object-subject relationship and is therefore non-dual.
Duality, on the other hand, is an illusion of the sphere of space and time
(maya): both our fear of death (mara) and our yearning for the pleasures of
the world (kama) derive from, and attach us to, this manifold delusion, from
which release is achieved only when the fear of death and desire for
enjoyment are extinguished in the knowledge (Sanskrit, bodhi; Greek, gnosis)
of non-duality. With that, the veil of delusion dissolves and the
realization is immediate that "we are all" as Schopenhauer avers, "one and
the same single Being". And the sentiment proper to this selfless
realization is compassion."
Just in case you thought mysticism and the disposal of subject object
metaphysics was unrelated! But we don't need philosophy or the East to say
the same thing. Its in Christianity too. Again from Campbell...
"Schopenhauer points to this same transcendent sense of mystery; so also the
circle of Cusansu; likewise the words of Jesus in the Gnostic Thomas Gospel;
'Cleve a piece of wood, I am there.' For this indded is the insight basic to
all metaphysical discourse, which is immediately known - as knowable to each
alone - only when the names and forms, the masks of God, have dissoved.
'Truth is one, states the Indian Rg Veda, 'the sages call it by many
names'."
When the names and forms have dissolved. Thats when the One is seen in the
many. That's what I mean about static reality becoming transparent to the
Dynamic reality that created it. And this is what I mean by saying the MOQ
expresses religious mysiticism, the oldest open secret.
I'm out of steam. Gotta get some lunch. 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 : Sun Dec 29 2002 - 20:22:08 GMT