From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Apr 05 2005 - 08:25:27 BST
Ant --
> The underlying theme of Pirsig's philosophy is the Buddha's advice
> to go out and experience a personal relationship with the Good yourself
> rather than take another person's secondary advice about it.
If Pirsig actually said that, I'm impressed. I think we're all on the same
page as regards second-hand experience and acquiescing to the authority of
another. And I, too, am talking about "direct experience" of the kind
reported by mystics and religious converts.
As William James noted in his chapter on Mysticism, " ...our normal waking
consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type
of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of
screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We
may go through life without expecting their existence; but apply the
requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in all their completeness,
definite types of mentality which probably somewhere have their field of
application and adaptation. No account of the universe in its totality can
be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded."
> Max has countered that "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is a
> relationship with a transcendental, while a special relationship with
> Quality takes place on an immanent plateau. A relationship with a deity is
> something that we can not know directly. On the other hand, Quality is
> something that we can know directly."
>
> Yes, I'd agree with this sentiment.
I'd agree that man's "relationship" with Quality is "immanent". But the use
of these terms seems to suggest that any other kind of experience is
inferior to or, perhaps, "less real or direct" than a Quality experience.
If having a personal relationship, say with a close friend, can be a Quality
experience by Pirsig's standards, then why must the experience of a deity be
a relationship we can not know directly? I remain agnostic when it comes
to evaluating mystical phenomena experienced by others; I certainly wouldn't
want to judge the quality of one's personal religious experiences.
> I'd see a 'relationship with a transcendental' as very much a one-way
> relationship while a 'relationship with Quality' is very much a two-way
one.
I don't think we know anything about transcendental relationships -- in an
empirical sense, at least. And that expression "relationship with Quality"
bothers me; don't we "experience" or "realize" Quality? Having a
relationship with it conjures up a conjugal dance of some sort -- but, then
again, maybe that's how Mr. Pirsig wanted us to think of Quality. Something
like the dance depicted in Alan Watt's hallucigenic "Joyous Cosmology".
> You can't have a personal relationship with Jesus if he is a
transcendental
> entity. On the other hand, you experience Quality directly.
Perhaps the proper term is "transcendent", meaning "exceeding the usual
limits [of existence]". Anyway, I think your typical born-again Christian
would insist that his relationship is indeed a personal one, if nothing
else.
> Except the former is based on faith (and in MOQ terms read "low quality
> intellectual pattern") and probably induced by some form of hypnosis when
> part of a congregation or religious crowd while a relationship with
Quality
> is a "matter of fact" one.
What a way to put down believers! If it's a spiritual concept it has to be
a "low quality intellectual pattern", whereas, if it's "a matter of fact"
it's worthy of the Quality stamp. Who's to say that a religious experience
is not a matter of fact? You've prejudged the experience before even
analyzing it. Can you not see the hypocrisy of your argument?
> Ham, remember science is largely to do with repeatable, measurable static
> patterns while experiences of the so-called "supernatural" are usually one
> off and not measurable.
> Moreover, due to the unscientific nature of the "supernatural" it is wide
> open to hucksters and frauds of all kinds in the "supernatural-religious
> business". As such, it is understandable why Pirsig wants to distance the
> MOQ from any supernatural or religious connotations.
> I therefore don't think the "supernatural" is
> particularly relevant to the MOQ ...
I don't know the meaning of "one off" in your first sentence, but I use the
word supernatural to express "beyond the natural", that is, "transcending
finite existence". I can well understand why Pirsig would want to avoid
being identified with the religious community; however, hucksters and fraud
can be found in almost any cultural activity, and I think he realized that
only by distancing himself from traditional religion could he develop a cult
following among the New Age intellectuals. If there had been a
philosophical reason, it could have been set forth in a metaphysical thesis.
But, alas, the author chose to distance himself from that effort as well,
didn't he?
Anthony, let me change course by a few degrees and introduce something
different by way of a hypothetical challenge. Once in a while I come up
with a "communications device" that, like the Eastern koan, would seem to
have potential for getting a point across more effectively than the usual
dialectical rhetoric. Possibly this is such a device. You be the judge.
Let's suppose that at your death you are faced with having to make a
voluntary choice between the following two options.
Option 1 (Nothingness): You may choose that, effective immediately, your
proprietary awareness, including all memory of your life-experience will be
permanently erased. Your "consciousness-of-self" will, in effect, return to
the nothingness from whence you came.
Option 2 (Somethingness): You may choose "psychic continuity" in a form or
mode that is presently incomprehensible to you and that can only be revealed
by choosing it beforehand.
How would you choose?
This isn't a trick question, and I won't hold you accountable for how you
answer. But it gets to what I think is the "essential core" of both
religion and philosophy. Hopefully, it will lend some "immanence" to the
points I tried to address earlier, one of them being that (as James
suggested) we cannot dismiss belief systems in our study of philosophy,
least of all our belief -- or disbelief -- in a transcendent reality.
I hope you will give my challenge the benefit of your thought, and pass it
along to others.
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 : Tue Apr 05 2005 - 08:28:28 BST