From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 21:51:00 GMT
Magic Scott,
I should have read your reply before replying to Platt.
Pirsig has admitted he was "skating on thin ice" with his Zen Buddhist
references behind the MoQ.
He found pleasing, credible sympathies between Eastern thought and his
evolving MoQ, but he didn't (at the time) have any deep understanding of
Buddhism.
However, less is often more.
Truth does not necesarily stand up to scientific analysis.
Analysis paralysis. We murder to dissect.
Careful with that razor Occam, or with that analytic knife Aristotle.
I really liked this ...
"There is nothing impractical about the logic of contradictory identity. It
does not replace ordinary logic, but instead is useful in areas where
ordinary logic fails, notably in philosophy and religion. Ordinary logic
works just fine in figuring out how to deal with lions. It doesn't work in
figuring out - what am I?"
As long as the lion's not too bright, I'd agree :-)
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: MD People and Value in the MOQ
> Platt,
>
> > Thanks, Scott. Makes sense in a weird sort of way. What Buddhist
> > philosophy does, in essence, is deny philosophy. "Thought is not a path
> to
> > reality,." itself a thought that is neither real nor unreal, etc.
>
> On the contrary (in my opinion), the logic of contradictory identity
> provides a new basis for philosophy (new to the West, anyway, though it
> does occur, albeit rarely, for example in Nicholas of Cusa and Coleridge).
> It does not imply that "thought is not a path to reality", which to me is
a
> SOM proposition: there is reality, and then there is thought *about*
> reality, or subject/object dualism. Instead, thought *is* reality, when it
> is understood to operate by means of self-contradictory identity, and
works
> just like (better: is a form of) DQ/SQ interaction. There are not two
> things, DQ and SQ. There is only the interaction of the dynamic and the
> static, each denying the other as it constitutes the other.
>
> >
> > Of such conundrums and paradoxes Buddhist "philosophy" appears to
thrive.
> > Like those baffling koans.
>
> Their purpose is not to baffle. Their purpose is become obvious. They
> baffle because we are used to thinking in SOM terms. Their purpose is to
> get us to think in new ways.
>
> > Of course, the problem is such a philosophy hardly appeals to the
> > practical-minded, like those who find it of value to survive in a world
> > where lions, tigers and bears don't understand paradox and exhibit no
> > sense of humor. (E.B. White wrote, "Paradox and humor get close to the
> > fire of truth.")
>
> There is nothing impractical about the logic of contradictory identity. It
> does not replace ordinary logic, but instead is useful in areas where
> ordinary logic fails, notably in philosophy and religion. Ordinary logic
> works just fine in figuring out how to deal with lions. It doesn't work in
> figuring out "what am I?".
>
> >
> > Be that as it may, you've nailed the Buddhist (and Pirsig's) notion of
> > "self." I'm grateful for being enlightened. :-)
>
> Well, it is not at all clear to me that this is Pirsig's notion of the
self
> as well. He seems to think that koans exist only to baffle, so they serve
> to stop thinking, not to get one to a new level of thinking. It could be
> that he didn't want to complicate the MOQ, so he avoided getting into the
> ins and outs of Buddhist philosophy, or it could be he has a limited
> understanding of it (which is pretty common, even among those who think of
> themselves as Buddhists -- comparable to theists who turn God into an
> idol). I just don't know. His treatment of the self in Lila sounds to me
> like a limited understanding.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Wed Nov 24 2004 - 22:31:46 GMT