From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Aug 15 2005 - 17:38:22 BST
Paul,
You said
MOQ, it seems to me, lends itself most easily to moving from (SQ
Habits) to (DQ Desire) in your list. I think this is because LILA was
written for people who are mostly at (SQ Habits).
I like that. One of the problems I have (and it seems Sam) is that
Lila mostly uses SQ habits (like logical dialectic) to make its MoQ
case, so that people happy with those kinds of arguments could be got
off first base. Many people who may have essentially already "got it"
from ZMM (MoQ un-named, much more Zen) were therefore unsatisfied with
the treatment it got in Lila.
Don't get me wrong, I buy the "Lila was necessary" argument to flesh
out MoQ, but having built it up, for academics to butcher by analysis,
it needs to recognise it's true roots and original rhetorical holistic
intent in ZMM.
(BTW - I think the level (6) is the other debate I'm having with Sam
about what the higher end of the Intellectual level is really meant to
be.)
Ian
On 8/15/05, Paul Turner <paul@turnerbc.co.uk> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> >So DQ experience = higher quality static patterns. This must follow from
> >the 'Quality' aspect of DQ. There is an evolutionary movement upwards (so
> >to speak) always. Do I understand you correctly?
>
> Paul: Yes, that's how I understand the MOQ. Although maybe 'expansion' is
> better than 'upwards' movement? All levels remain and are needed.
>
> >But change, ie, the dissolution of current static patterns, can also result
> >in degeneration. What is going on there? Evidently something different
> >than apprehension of DQ.
>
> Paul: Good question, one which is occupying my thoughts at the moment. How
> does one tell the difference? This is a problem which Matt, amongst others,
> has raised. I have said in another post that in the MOQ Dynamic Quality is
> privileged above static quality because it is the expansive force of
> evolution but does this mean that all 'anti-static' experience is
> privileged? The MOQ answers 'no' but your question remains.
>
> From this it follows that rejection of SQ
> >habitually, as in a restless soul, does not necessarily result in
> >experience
> >of DQ. Some other method, such as meditation, might have a more probable
> >likelihood of DQ experience although we can't discount epiphanies from many
> >different sources (art, for example, or hallucinogens, or personal
> >tragedy).
>
> Paul: There are thousands of anecdotal descriptions of Dynamic Quality
> experience (from artists, musicians, physicists, sportspeople, writers etc.)
> which may be a useful reference point and clearly there are the eastern arts
> and disciplines which seem to be dead set on it. I think the problems occur
> when we try and say something general about it. This is something David
> Harding and I have touched upon. I have just quoted this in a post to
> David:
>
> "For a person who is not yet enlightened the way to avoid...confusion may be
> to ask of each desire, 'Is this a common ego desire? Is this a common
> sensual desire?' If not, then maybe the quality which stimulates the desire
> is Dynamic. If it is a common sensual or egotistic desire, however, then
> one should wait a few days and see if the desire weakens or goes away.
> Sensuality and egotism have a way of waxing and waning in the manner of the
> emotions, whereas Dynamic Quality tends to be steady and patient" [Pirsig,
> 1997, cited in McWatt's PhD Thesis]
>
> >However, a 'habit' of SQ rejection seems to me as much of an attachment as
> >the 'habit' of maintaining one's SPOVs. And this leads to your thread
> >'Snakes and Ladders', which somewhat answered my second question directed
> >at
> >Scott.
> >
> >I am going to paraphrase your main points there very crudely. Please
> >excuse
> >the butchery :).
> >
> >1. There is attachment to SQ habits.
> >2. Desire for DQ.
> >3. Attachment to DQ.
> >4. Desire for the 'Middle Way' (DQ + SQ).
> >5. Attachment to the Middle Way.
> >6. Release from attachment.
>
> Paul: I think (6) is one interpretation of what Buddha taught in order to
> be free from suffering but I think the MOQ sees suffering as an inevitable,
> even necessary, aspect of evolution.
>
> >I have complained about veneration of DQ before. It appears however, that
> >veneration of anything still constitutes attachment, which is what we're
> >really working on, not the object of the attachment. This is the general
> >thrust of your post that I'm getting.
>
> Paul: Yes, and I think that is what Chi-tsang is suggesting.
>
> >The MOQ then, given it can only work with description, ie, SPOVs, is geared
> >mostly for 1., and depending on where a person is at, 4. Changing the
> >object of our attachment and release from attachment is up to us. Is this
> >close to what you're suggesting?
>
> Paul: Well, I think it is all "up to us" but the MOQ, it seems to me, lends
> itself most easily to moving from (1) to (2) in your list. I think this is
> because LILA was written for people who are mostly at (1).
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Mon Aug 15 2005 - 17:49:15 BST