From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Dec 22 2004 - 22:40:36 GMT
DMB,
(I've been moving and without a phone for a while, hence the delay in
responding. For context, your whole message is below.)
> dmb says:
> As I understand it, this is the problem. Unless an idea is expressed in
> exactly the same terms, with exactly the same metaphors, you are unable to
> recognize it. Why is it not enough that static and dynamic are
contradictory
> terms and together they both constitute our identity.
[Scott] Because "together they both constitute an identity" is not enough.
Two halves of a pie together constitute an identity. What is missing is the
process of existing through self-negation, of each being constituted in the
other, of each in some way being the other. Hence, one can find in the MOQ
a denial of the contradictory identity of the static and dynamic when
Pirsig calls for putting all of the static to sleep in order to experience
pure DQ. This tends to an acceptance of the reality of each by itself,
which is counter to the logic of contradictory identity.
> It simply isn't
> reasonable to expect anything more than a description of the same idea in
> his own terms.
See above. The way Pirsig uses DQ and SQ is counter to the LCI, not the
same idea. He tends to privilege DQ over SQ, like the Hinayana privileged
nirvana over samsara.
> And I hardly think Kitaro is the last word in Buddhism. In
> fact, he was followed in the Kyoto school by even more impressive figures
Who did you have in mind, and in what ways are what they say relevant to
the issue at hand? Tanabe has his differences with Nishida, but somehow I
don't see that his emphasis on "faith in Other-power" or "repentance",
while interesting, in some way has a bearing on the value of the LCI.
Nishitani seems to me to accept it and uses it quite forcefully.
> dmb says:
> yes, I keep dishing out mysticism 101 because you seem to need it. And I
> don't think there is only one kind of mysticism or mystical experience.
I'd
> be happy to relate a great deal of info on that matter, but it really
seems
> to me that you're confused about the basics and so I've been focused on
> that. You deny the very basics that define philosophical mysticism and
> otherwise confuse the matter. That's why the deep-guy pose offended me so
> much. It doesn't help.
[Scott] And it seems to me that you are unable to see that I am putting a
forth a philosophical mysticism that differs in some respects from yours,
but since you think there is only one such philosophy, yours, your only way
of reacting is to think that I am "confused about the basics", and can only
reply with basic stuff I am quite familiar with, but partially reject.
- Scott
(Previous post:)
Scott Roberts asked:
Where's the identity? I see nothing of the form: Big self (or DQ) is not
other than small self (or SQ), small self is not other than big self. Where
is a formulation like: the self is the contradictory identity of DQ and SQ?
Instead, the MOQ says that the self is just SQ, but then there is also this
big self, which is DQ.
dmb says:
As I understand it, this is the problem. Unless an idea is expressed in
exactly the same terms, with exactly the same metaphors, you are unable to
recognize it. Why is it not enough that static and dynamic are contradictory
terms and together they both constitute our identity. It simply isn't
reasonable to expect anything more than a description of the same idea in
his own terms. And I hardly think Kitaro is the last word in Buddhism. In
fact, he was followed in the Kyoto school by even more impressive figures.
Scott said:
You keep making your points by dishing out Mysticism 101 stuff. The
"big/small self" distinction is ok to start with, but on further critique
is found wanting. Also, you seem to believe that there is but one
philosophical mysticism. A first exploration of Buddhism will find this
kind of "big self/small self" and "pure experience" talk. It's still too
dualistic. A deeper one will find something more like the later Nishida.
dmb says:
yes, I keep dishing out mysticism 101 because you seem to need it. And I
don't think there is only one kind of mysticism or mystical experience. I'd
be happy to relate a great deal of info on that matter, but it really seems
to me that you're confused about the basics and so I've been focused on
that. You deny the very basics that define philosophical mysticism and
otherwise confuse the matter. That's why the deep-guy pose offended me so
much. It doesn't help.
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 Dec 22 2004 - 22:52:42 GMT