From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Nov 15 2004 - 19:15:20 GMT
Ham Priday to David Buchanan, et al
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 2:15 PM
Subject: RE: MD On Transcendence
> dmb says:
> I think there are two distinct meanings of the word 'transcendence' and
that
> confusing the two is at the root of a whole series of mistakes. Ham's
> comments serve as an example of this confusion. I think Pirsig'
> anti-theistic stance is a rejection of transcendence in that sense. He
> rejects the anthropomorphic God that stands apart from nature.
David, I think we are all in agreement on rejecting an anthropomorphic God.
What I am talking about is an "anthropocentric Man" with the capability of
transcending his existential "beingness".
Maybe this is expecting too much from a Western philosophy, but I had hopes.
The remainder of your discourse, which is very instructive as regards the
MOQ, precludes the concept of a transcendence "beyond existence". So it is
still locked within empirical reality.
You continue...
> Instead,
> there is DQ, which is transcendent in the sense that it is beyond our
> ability to conceptualize or express in words. This sense of the word does
> not refer to that which "lies beyond existence", but only the undefinable,
> pre-intellectual, empirical reality. And these two ideas are at the heart
of
> the difference between East and West and they're at the center of our
> debates concerning faith, theism, and mysticism...
>
> THOU ART THAT, p47-8
> "...there are two ways of interpreting the word 'transcendent'. One
> signifies something that is out there and so transcends this place here.
In
> that sense, Yahweh is transcendent. Yahweh is, it might be said, a
> supernatual fact, up there.
Why "up there"? We are not speaking of physical placement but of a
transcendant source or essence that is not localized or limited by physical
dimensions.
> The other way of reading the word 'transcendent'
> is that of Kant in the CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON, as the ultimate mystery of
> being that transcends all conceptualization, beyond thought, beyond
> categories. That is the notion that is found in the Upanishads.
You and Kant are both correct that the ultimate reality cannot be discerned
through reason or communicated in rational discourse. That is the meaning
of transcendence.
> dmb continues:
> In theology, the difference between the two meanings was debated in terms
of
> man's relationship with God. Should it be thought of in terms of
> RELATIONSHIP or in terms of INDENTITY? Eckhart, for exmaple, had a unitive
> mystical experience that compelled him to conclude that INDENTITY was the
> correct term, but, Pope John XXII censured it as false. This sort of thing
> happens over and over again in the West. Those who dare to identify
> themselves with God are generally considered heretics and some, like Jesus
> himself, were killed for saying so. The dominant view in the West is one
of
> RELATIONSHIP, its all about "I and Thou" rather than "Thou Art That". The
> position that God is to be found within has always existed as an
underground
> current in the West and the idea that man and nature are seperate from God
> has been the dominant view. The religions of the West are religions of
> exile, of trying to get back to the garden, of trying to earn a place in
> paradise through a proper relationship with God, usually mediated through
a
> social institution and its functionaries.
>
> Now step back from these two appraoches for a moment and recall Pirsig's
> assertion that "all our intellectual descriptions are culturally derived",
> that the myths, rituals and cosmology stories of the social level come
> before any intellectual descriptions can be made. Now if we consider that
> the theological positon in traditional christianity has maintained the
idea
> of a transcendent God in the sense that it is ontologically seperate and
> then compare that kind of duality to the kind of duality we get in SOM, I
> think we can see a continuity.
I agree, although I think that the Christian mythos tended toward unifying
man with God; and to that extent it may be thought to have borrowed from
Eastern philosophy. But, as you say ...
> We can see that mythological dualism led to
> intellectual dualism. And I think it is no accident that Pirsig is
rejecting
> both SOM and theism in favor of philosophical mysticism, which does NOT
> posit a transcendent God. Instead, the MOQ is a form of philosophical
> mysticism, which says that "the reality of the world is intellectually
> unknowable".
If the reality of the world (ultimate truth) is "intellectually unknowable",
might it not be realizable by some other means than intellect? You appear
to be ruling out this possibility in the same way that scientific
materialism does. And, so long as you and MOQ reject the truth of
mysticism, you do not achieve the metaphysical breakthrough claimed for Mr.
Pirsig's philosophy.
After carefully reading your analysis, I find myself in complete agreement
with Sam here.
Sam said:
> My point is that the standard MoQ has no locus of value corresponding to
> people as such, therefore people (whether they exist or not in the MoQ)
are
> of only indirect concern - what is of value is the IDEA. ...as I read the
> rejection of the isolated ego self, it could represent just as easily the
> third level social patterns imposed on an individual. There seems no
> distinction made in the MoQ between, eg, someone we would all agree was
> ego-bound (Saddam Hussein?)and someone who was fully actualised in a
Jungian
> sense (or 'enlightened', whichever language works). In each case the
> 'person' is an illusion. As you know, I think this is a mistake - and I
> think the 9/11 point brings it out.
>
> dmb says:
> I can tell by the way you've frame the question, Sam, that you have
mistaken
> idea of the isloated ego self. We are not talking about relative amounts
of
> pride or humility. Its not about egotisitical people. Its about the West's
> concept of the individual as the starting point of reality, which begins
> fully with Descartes, which also marks the beginng of SOM. Its a
> metaphysical construct that asserts our normal waking consciousness as the
> only form of consciousness - as far as knowledge of reality goes.
Are you suggesting another form of consciousness?
> The MOQ
> does not deny that people exist, which would be quite absurd, it only
denies
> that the normal waking consciousness is primary in any metaphysical sense.
> That sense of the self is considered to be illusory for at least two
> reasons. The first being that one's ultimate identity has nothing to do
with
> the social roles we play, the feelings we feel or the thoughts we think.
The sense of self is illusory only from the ultimate reality perspective;
self is primary in the existential (empirical) perspective. It's these two
perspectives that are irreconcilable, not reality itself. In a rational
sense, duality is immutable. I maintain that this immutability is "built
into" the cosmos to give man autonomy in the realization of Value.
Therefore, in my "belief system", what you say in the next paragraph makes
no sense to me.
> The second reason is that all these secondary roles, feeling and thoughts
are
> constantly changing. Our individual persoal identities, the ones that go
> with normal waking consciousness, change constantly throughout a lifetime
> and depend upon the cultural and even the geographical circumstances. And
> the idea of rejecting the isolated ego self is not to reject these things,
> but to open them up, to make them reflections of the underlying dynamic
> reality rather than take them as the starting point of reality. In the
MOQ,
> the pre-intellectual reality is dynamic and undivided, but subjects and
> objects are a static division, an intellectual construct. Its a damn good
> one, but as a metaphysical propositons go, it has some serious flaws. It
> works to a point, but ultimately subjects (isolated ego, the little
> self,)and objects disappear and give way to a larger, deeper sense of
self,
> the big Self.
David, forgive me for requoting what I wrote to Platt a while back, but it
sums up the rational/mystical predicament as well as anything else that's
come to my attention:
>
> Man is a rational organism in a reality that is essentially
> non-rational. Reality encompasses him, but he cannot encompass reality.
> All he can do is structure it in terms of his own rationality. This for
him
> is truth, and it suffices to get him through the organic process that he
> calls life. The philospher wants something more. He seeks to liberate
his
> thinking from its rational bonds, but he lacks the necessary tools. Only
the
> mystic, it would seem, has the wisdom to transcend rationality and reach a
> higher truth.
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Nov 15 2004 - 19:25:17 GMT