From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 10:12:39 BST
Hi DMB,
> 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.
Well, I think the 'once again' refers to the fact that we interpret Pirsig
differently. You miss out the most important part of the quotation:
"'What's new?' is an interesting and broadening eternal question, but one
which, if pursued exclusively, results only in an endless parade of trivia
and fashion, the silt of tomorrow. ...There are eras of human history in
which the channels of thought have been too deeply cut and no change was
possible, and nothing new ever happened, and 'best' was a matter of dogma,
but that is not the situation now. Now the stream of our common
consciousness seems to be obliterating its own banks, losing its central
direction and purpose, flooding the lowlands, disconnecting and isolating
the highlands and to no particular purpose other than the wasteful
fulfillment of its own internal momentum. Some channel deepening seems
called for."
Perhaps the interesting question would be: what is the silt in today's
culture? And then to explore the origins of that silting up. Doubtless we'd
still disagree.
> 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?
Hey look, I know you're jealous that I actually read books and don't just
look things up on the internet, but lets keep it civil ;-) Put it down to me
being tired and running some things out on autopilot. I still think it's
true though (that buddhism/yoga etc CAN be used in a way that simply
reinforces structures of oppression).
> dmb says:
> Right. It seems that you are complaining about self-indulgence and are not
> talking about DQ at all.
Eggsackly.
> 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.
Yes.
> The enlightenment experience
> is about dissolving the ego and consumer choices are all about enhancing
> the
> ego.
Yes.
> 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.
Cool. We're agreed that we need some SQ rungs on the ladder in order to
climb then?
> 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.
Maybe they're broken for you, I don't think that means they're broken
universally. What SQ rungs do you find useful? The ones I find useful are
all the ones associated with the Christian path. What are yours?
I think there's something from MF that more properly belongs here, so I'll
pursue it now.
> Sam also said on the 12th:
> But talking about themes running through posts - isn't it a bit odd that
> your(dmb's)understanding of religion presumes the reality of individual
> choice, but denies it any philosophical status, whereas my understanding
> of
> religion emphasises the group and communal nature, but gives individuality
> a
> high degree of philosophical status? Just a thought....
>
> dmb says:
> Its not that mysticism or the MOQ gives no philosophical status to the
> individual, but simply denies that the conventional self is the ultimate
> self.
Which I agree with.
> As I keep saying, the little self is not an illusion or a mirage. Its
> as real as rocks and trees and all other static forms. If we are a forest
> of
> static patterns and static patterns are real, then the conventional self
> is
> quite real too. How could we deny the experience we all know so well?
> Seems
> impossible to me. But the MOQ follows the East and philsophical mysticism
> in
> asserting that the conventional self is not the straight forward and
> primary
> reality we tend to think it is. Instead of being the barest of facts, the
> conventional self and its perceptions is actually a heap of concepts and
> interpretations and so the ego-self is in a very real sense, an abstact
> concept, a construction we so habitually use that we have forgotten that
> it
> is so abstract. In this way, the West is thoroughly SOM, even for those
> who
> have never so much as glanced at a philosophy book. What most would view
> as
> common sense realism is actually quite abstract. This is the illusion.
I agree that there isn't an ultimate 'reality' (ie a different ontological
status) for our individuality, in other words, our individuality is a matter
of SQ patterns, not of Quality as such. So we're agreed there. Where I think
we disagree is that I see the individual being composed of (at least) two
static levels, one which is socially derived, which I think of as the ego
(in popular terms), and the second being the primary characteristic of the
fourth level (which is all the eudaimonic stuff). I disagree that the fourth
level is 'intellect' in the abstract sense of the word (ie about symbol
manipulation) - for reasons we've gone through fairly exhaustively.
What I don't know an answer to is how Pirsig understands the 'forest of
static patterns' equating to an individual. But I might write up something
separately on that.
Cheers
Sam
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 - 12:16:48 BST