From: Allen Barrows (allen_barrows@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 28 2005 - 17:38:17 BST
Part 3 of 3
A naive view of Eastern mysticism focuses on enlightenment, or the
direct
experience, as the end-all be-all. Looked at in this way western
rationality is directly opposed and we have an Aristotelian either / or
split, with never the twain shall meet. Scott helped clarify this for
me
when I first joined the group in my thread on Zen and rationality.
Allen - It is always a good thing when friends cooperate.
>From other sources since then I've gathered that enlightenment is but a
foreshadow or preparatory step for holding both 'nothingness' and the world
of maya in one's mind simultaneously. This is obvious from hindsight, or we
would have a Descartes type paradox. The 'Sage', or wise person, an agent
who can do this, is a common goal in many traditions. If fact, I've come to
think of this as the defining attribute of a 'Wisdom Tradition'.
Another interesting side note is the various types of Yoga in the Hindu
Wisdom Tradition. One is Jnana Yoga, the way to God through knowledge.
This focuses on the aspect of the Cosmos as one. Another, Bhakti Yoga, the
way to God through love, depends on relationship as its central aspect, and
therefore duality. That both are held as legitimate paths in the same
tradition speaks to this idea of both the one and the many being both
correct / not correct in a both / and kind of way. I think Paul was
mentioning in a recent post about the founding sages of Vedanta having these
different perspectives as individuals, also within the same tradition without contradiction.
Allen - Paul is always worth reading very carefuly in my experience. I learn much from
his posts.
To close a long post (maya calls, got to work ;)) I'll finish with the story
of an attempt of mine to understand a seeming paradox in Stoicism.
The Stoics were labeled 'dogmatists' for they held that certain knowledge
was possible. The Skeptics, OTOH, claimed that certain knowledge of
anything was impossible, even though both traditions claimed decent from the
Socratic tradition. From an SOM perspective the two seem irreconcilable.
However, the foundation for the Stoic claim rests on what they call the
'cognitive impression'. This is an 'impression' that registers with one
with such force as to be grasped as certain on its face (the famous metaphor
is a closed fist representing 'scientific' knowledge). Now, if we start
with input data from the 5 senses (the Stoics were empiricists in this
regard) how can one support such a claim? The Skeptics had a field day.
Mind, the claim was for certainty, not just a high probability or pragmatic
truth. The only way this could be feasible, as I see it, is to allow for
direct experience (the Stoics start with experience, not abstraction, as the
basis for reality).
So far so good. But, this impression is also supposed to be 'cognitive',
that is, certainty in the realm of articulate thought. We know that parsing
produces less than what is experienced, so how can certainty, even if
experienced, be transparent to the thinking parsing cognitive part of the
mind? Only if the Sophos, or Sage, can hold both the undifferentiated
experience of the one and the differentiated experience of the many together
at one time. Then the cognitive impression makes sense.
And, the Skeptics, if taken in moderation, were also right. To paraphrase
one of the alleged sources of Stoic metaphysics, Heraclitus, 'you can't step
in the same river twice'. So, it seems to me, that if w dig around enough
in Greek intellectual history we also can find a 'Wisdom Tradition' that
incorporates the paradox of the one and the many. That this time and place
may be the beginnings of the West's SOM stuckness is another story. At
least for me, its easier (relatively) to root around in ancient Greece
rather than India just because the former is the start of our intellectual
tradition and with the later there is more cultural differences to wadethrough.
Allen - A story which has bogged down this forum to the detriment of voices such as
your own. The Stoic tradition you sketch here sounds very familiar to some
Abidharma (spl) thinkers who got a bit bogged down with naming things before
Nargajuna stepped in and re-emphasised nothingness. If you name something by the
time you have named it it has changed, and it never was what you named it in the first
place. (Time lag argument.)
There are basically two ways to view the evolutionary process; bottom up
(materialism), or top down (starting with consciousness or some such). I
think the materialist perspective from within SOM is a dead end for the
explanations of how life arises and how consciousness arises is just as ugly
as it can get.
Allen - Not by half!
This violates the elegance principle (do I here aesthetic)
of the scientific method every which way.
Allen - I certainly hear it.
Materialism from within a MOQ
framework shows more promise for inorganic comes first with subsequent
higher quality more complex static patterns following later. So the order
looks correct but the drive for higher quality still is unexplained.
We are left with what motivates DQ if we can even talk about such a thing.
Allen - DQ is the motivator of sq relationships, and relationships appear to becoming
ever more coherent. The more coherent things are the more 'complex
stability' there is, and complex stability is ever more open to DQ influence.
But Pirsig insists on this drive for higher quality static patterns, this
evolution, and it seems to me to fit in with some old ideas concerning
teleology. At least to our purposeful human natures it seems this
way!!
I don't know if 'intellect' or 'consciousness' is a good label for DQ's
drive, but it does seem to me things make more sense if we assume some
aspect of agency at work. Quality remains ineffable, however, and it may
just muddy the waters to attempt applying attributes to the Whole.
Hard to grasp. Personally, though, I like Scott's top down approach better.
Well, Allen, does overabundance suffice for being late?
Live well,
Steve
Allen - I do not mind waiting if this is the result.
I am not sure about Scotts top down approach.
I have a feeling the cosmos is evolving towards ever more coherent states, and these
states are complex stable relationships between sq patterns which are
responsive to DQ. You have raised the issue of agency and i have a feeling that agency
is a metaphor for value? Motion towards a valued states is initiated by
valuing it before analysing why this is so - it is only later that the valuing is attributed to
some 'thing' that may not be there?
My problem with agency is simply the same as one of causation, and causation is
explained in Lila by replacing cause with the word value.
Teleology is also dealt with by making DQ the aim of sq evolution, sq is migrating
towards DQ as Pirsig puts it.
It may be argued that DQ and value are being given allot of work to do here! And i can
understand why that may be a problem. But it seems that we do not know or
understand everything and considering value does appear to be a high quality
explanation for our experience then there has to come a point where we realise we
are limited in our concepts. DQ IS that area ever outside our repertiore of conceptual
tools.
DQ has to be left as undefined as Quality - we can not identify anything in any of our
conceptual models whether that be String theory, Complexity, Chaos theory
or what not that serves as DQ. But we can use DQ and i think coherence may do this - it
says something about sq patterns while leaving DQ out of it. Tricky.
I shall get back to you Steve and thanks for so much to think about. I especially liked the
String theory and Stoic material - it is always stimulating when
someone takes apparently oposing views as those you identify in Stoicism and unifies
them in a larger (and more coherent?) framework. Excellent IMO
Thank you,
Allen
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 Jun 28 2005 - 22:31:05 BST