From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 01:25:44 BST
Sam Norton said:
In ZMM Pirsig talks about the river bursting its banks, and how he wants to
deepen the channels. I read that as a good image for why we need SQ more
than DQ in our society at present. I think we are drowning in DQ, and what
actually enables people to live are liferafts of SQ.
dmb says:
It might be worth pointing out that, in Pirsig's analogy, the banks are
flooded because the channels are filled with silt. The old channels can't
carry the burden any longer. "In this Chautauqua", he writes on page 7, "I
would like not to cut any new channels of consciousness but simply dig
deeper into old ones that have become silted in with debris of thoughts
grown stale and plattitudes too often repeated." It sounds to me like he
sees the problem is too much static, quite the opposite from your
interpretation - once again.
Sam said:
More concretely, with respect to religious belief, I think our present
emphasis on DQ in religion involves an exaltation of choice, conditioned by
the wider structures of late capitalism, and as such a religion which
pursues DQ in the way you described is, I feel, rapidly suborned by those
same economic structures. Have you come across the criticism of Buddhism (as
pursued in the West) as 'making the world safe for capitalism'? In other
words, that all that the spiritual techniques of meditation etc are used for
are to compensate for the stresses of modern work, so the 'religion' merely
functions as oil for the cogs of capitalism.
dmb replies:
Buddhism makes the world safe for capitalism? The structures of late
capitalism and stressed out yuppies who take yoga? Are you kidding? That's
your idea of "our present emphasis on DQ in religion"? I wish I could offer
a more constructive line of criticism, but all I muster is a big raspberry
or Bronx cheer, if you prefer. I think that if there were a contest to
determine the "most contorted paragraph of the year", this one would be one
of the strongest contenders. I'm guessing that it sounds a lot like a
theological book you've been reading recently?
Sam said:
So, no. My basic perspective - which may be an unjustifiable prejudice,
doubtless that'll be exposed in due course - is that in our present society
DQ functions as a mask for self-indulgence. DQ (in the terms of this debate)
is conforming to the ways of the world, and so is radically and profoundly
anti-prophetic. Of course, what that means is that "DQ" is NOT really DQ.
But I think we'll only really get to the proper DQ once we have climbed a
few more steps on the ladder of SQ in religious ascent.
dmb says:
Right. It seems that you are complaining about self-indulgence and are not
talking about DQ at all.
Sam said:
That's what I think is missing with the emphasis on DQ (or personal choice)
in our culture, and which seems to underlie your perspective. I think the
important thing is to climb the mountain. And until you have actually
achieved some measure of independence from the crowd (who are all in love
with the idol of consumer preference) you're not actually open to DQ. You
have to stick with the static patterns for a long time before they get
transparent (360 degree enlightenment or whatever - a useful image) - but
that's because you can't short circuit enlightenment. Enlightenment is not a
commodity, ready packaged. To summarise - I think the prophetic role at the
moment is actually to be found most in those who are rooted in the static
forms, because it is those static forms that enable them to withstand the
flood of DQ (and degeneracy) washing away everything else.
dmb replies:
In the summary statement you seem to be equating DQ with enlightenment, but
at the top you seem to be equating it with personal choice in a capitalist
culture. I think the two are nearly opposite. The enlightenment experience
is about dissolving the ego and consumer choices are all about enhancing the
ego. And I really don't know who suggested that enlightenment can be
purchased as if it were a consumer product. Several times before I've seen
you make the point that we need to be rooted in static forms, have to climb
the mountain before getting to the top. This strikes me as another case of
disputing a point that no one has made. The problem is that the static forms
are obsolete. They don't work. The symbols that once carried us to the top
are broken. This is a result of history and you shouldn't take it
personally, by the way. I mean, I'd agree that DQ is quite meaningless
without sq and, as Ron DiSanto put it, "you have to have a mind before you
can lose it", but you seem to be insisting that very certain and specific
static forms are required to complete the journey. These are the very forms
that are broken. These are the forms that make up the debris and silt that
Pirsig is talking about. In Lila he calls it clap trap.
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 Apr 04 2005 - 01:48:04 BST