From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 24 2005 - 14:21:27 GMT
Scott,
>Scott:
>No, I hadn't forgotten this post (though I am grateful for seeing it
>again).
>But my reaction is pretty much the same. You acknowledge that the MOQ as
>presented in LILA stems from the first level. I would agree with you that
>this may be appropriate for a Western audience still stuck in conventional
>truth, *except* that Pirsig calls it "metaphysics". And being based on the
>first level, that metaphysics is wrong, leading, as I mentioned, to such
>beliefs that everything is "evolving toward DQ", privileging DQ over SQ,
>and
>the attitude toward intellect. From the second level, such formulations
>are,
>as I see it, hindrances. Further, I disagree with you and Ant that Pirsig's
>further comments add up to a "'second-level' understanding of the MOQ".
>Well, I can't claim to know just what he thinks, but as I see it, if he had
>that second-level understanding, he would not have written LILA the way he
>did. This would be like knowing about QM and relativity, and then writing a
>book on Newtonian physics as if that were the extent of current physics.
Paul: I don't think this is the same. The key point of Chi-tsang's device
is that, unlike the *progression* from Newtonian physics to quantum
mechanics the levels are not a 'ladder' to be climbed. You privilege the
second level formulation of the two-truths over the first. This is an
error, in my opinion.
>There should have been more hedging, some acknowledgment of the further
>levels. Basically, I am saying that you just can't get from the MOQ to a
>second-level understanding of the MOQ, without reworking at the fundamental
>level, in particular, in how DQ and SQ are treated, and in that case it is
>questionable whether it should still be called the MOQ.
Paul: Perhaps, but it still seems a mistake to say that the first level
formulation of the MOQ is wrong i.e. that it is any more wrong, any less
valuable, than the other two.
>To put it another way, anybody who participates in MD has presumably read
>LILA and therefore should have, to some extent, assimilated the first-
>level.
>Shouldn't they, then, be exposed to the second and third?
Paul: Yes, but knowing first that all formulations are prajnapti.
If I may close with this excerpt from the Chi-tsang essay:
"Chi-tsang explains "that practitioners of sharp faculties require only the
instruction of the first form [level] of two truths, whereas practitioners
of dull faculties have to go through the instruction of all three forms
[levels] of two truths before they can achieve awakening.""
;-)
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 26 2005 - 10:55:19 GMT