From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Wed Aug 10 2005 - 18:09:51 BST
Scott said: This is why Pirsig talks of something "pre-intellectual" which
intellect
covers up.
DM: I do not object to this move, because the point of it is to highlight
the role of value/quality, something neglected in western philosophy,
and that experience must be grounded in this becoming aware of
feelings/effects that are either good or bad without, I would suggest,
differentiating these as belonging to some Other. Epistemology needs
to be corrected and moved away from the notion of a observer, we
do not observe life, we experience it, we are open to/moved by
the changes experience brings about in our being, our being is dynamic,
the changes it undergoes is the basis on which we postulate the Other,
the World, as that which is the cause of these changes (not detached
perceptions). Children have this spontaneous reaction to their experiences,
things make them laugh or cry, adults have acquired SOM and are able
to be more in-different.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@cox.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: MD Self-Evident MoQ Truths
> Paul, DMB,
>
>>Scott prev:
>>If the terms 'divided' and 'undivided' are one such pair, then why do
>>you blithely talk about "realizing the undivided reality behind those
>>conceptual pairs of opposites."? Doing so raises the undivided above
>>the divided, and that is a mistake.
>
> Paul said:
> I think the apprehension of undivided DQ, the emptying out of static
> patterned divisions, is only privileged to the extent that it allows new
> and
> better static patterns to emerge. I don't think Pirsig thinks it is the
> ultimate goal or the terminus of Zen discipline or art or any other
> activity.
>
> "In [the "Gateless Gate"] analogy, as one approaches the gate, it seems to
> be a goal, but after one has passed through and looks back he sees there
> never was any gate. Translating back into the MOQ, one can say that
> Dynamic
> Quality is a goal from a static point of view, but is the origin of all
> things from a Dynamic understanding." [LILA'S CHILD Annotation 69]
>
> As such, I don't think Dynamic Quality is considered by Pirsig to be a
> fixed
> 'centre' - although maybe it is seen as a temporary one. I think the idea
> is that Dynamic Quality, being Dynamic, is in need of continual
> rediscovery.
> This is in accordance with Zen Buddhism which says the path *is* the
> destination. I would say that the perception of Dynamic Quality always
> gives way to new patterns and the trick is to not think that these
> patterns
> are some kind of stable state of enlightenment to attach oneself to but to
> continually 'regain' the 'beginner's mind' through which all beautiful,
> astonishing and valuable things are achieved.
>
> Scott:
> The phrase "[DQ] is the origin of all things from a Dynamic understanding"
> is centric. From a differential point of view, there is no origin, that
> both
> "seeings" (from the static point of view and from the dynamic) are wrong.
> The problem with the MOQ is that it based on the dynamic "seeing:". And so
> what you say does not address the final point in the post you are
> responding
> to:
>
> "I do not give it a rest because your/Pirsig's form of philosophical
> mysticism (what Magliola calls "centric Zen") is the basis from which
> Pirsig
> deals with intellect. Intellect divides, which according to your view is
> taken to lead one away from the center. But if the divided is understood
> to
> be in contradictory identity with the undivided, then one can appreciate
> that intellect creates, that it is DQ as well as SQ, that there is no
> "center", that the aesthetic requires division, and is not "beyond" it."
>
> That is, the metaphysics portrayed in Lila is worked out *as if* DQ is an
> undivided center. This is why Pirsig capitalizes DQ but not SQ. This is
> why
> intellect is seen as leading one away from DQ, as just SQ and not in
> itself
> DQ. This is why Pirsig talks of something "pre-intellectual" which
> intellect
> covers up.
>
> Now you do not agree with me that intellect is DQ. So what I am trying to
> point out is that the basis of our disagreement lies with the language
> that
> Pirsig uses to discuss DQ in Lila. I do not accept that language,
> preferring
> the language of contradictory identity, which is also applicable
> (necessary,
> IMO) to discussing intellect and the individual (the self). Because Pirsig
> uses the language of centric Zen in Lila, the self is seen as just SQ. I
> see
> it as a locus of contradictory identity of DQ and SQ. So the point I am
> making is that the difference in my metaphysics from Pirsig's is a
> consequence of the difference in our language used to discuss mystical
> reality. So who is right? Or is it just a matter of both of us starting
> from
> a different faith? (I note in passing that this difference cannot be
> settled
> empirically, so it is nonsense to describe the MOQ as empirical).
>
> Of course, I think I am right, and to back that up I gave the Magliola
> quote -- though it takes reading the whole book to drive it home. But
> Sam's
> response to DMB in the "Tat Tvam Asi, Campbell and Theosis" thread is also
> applicable. The source of the anti-intellectual language of Pirsig stems,
> I
> believe, from the Romantic reaction to Modernism, which is to say, it is
> itself Modernist, dependent on a SOM view of intellect (as a mirror of
> nature, and hence separate from nature). So when Zen came to the West, its
> anti-intellectual form was emphasized. Watts is probably the main person
> responsible for this, though Northrop also falls into this trap.
>
> Let me leave you with this question: I said that the aesthetic requires
> division. Do you agree? If so, does it make any sense at all to speak of
> an
> undifferentiated aesthetic continuum? If not, can you explain how one can
> have an aesthetic experience (or experience simpliciter) without division?
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 Aug 10 2005 - 18:18:55 BST