From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Sat Nov 26 2005 - 18:16:00 GMT
Paul,
>Scott said:
>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 said: 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.
Scott:
In thinking metaphysically I do indeed privilege the second over the first.
This for the simple reason that the second shows the philosophical
limitations of the first. It would be another story for religious practice,
which is what I assume Chi-tsang's device is about. I'll also point out that
I temper that privileging by characterizing my metaphysical views as
"ironic", which I see as a gesture toward the third level.
As for not being a "progression", that would be the case after one has been
exposed to all three, but if one only knows of the first, one must *then* be
exposed to the second, which won't make much sense unless one *has* first
been exposed to the first. After all, it doesn't make much sense to describe
DQ and SQ as a contradictory identity unless one is aware of the DQ/SQ
dichotomy. That is, Chi-tsang says it isn't a ladder to be climbed to
awakening, but there is a progressiveladder to be climbed just to be aware
of all three levels. One hears about the first level, then one hears about
the second level, and then the third. *Then* one can slide up and down the
levels.
Scott said:
>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 said: 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.
Scott:
Again, for practice, yes, but for philosophy, no.
Paul said:
>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 said: Yes, but knowing first that all formulations are prajnapti.
Scott:
Yes, irony is required. But it almost comes as a given in the logic of
contradictory identity, since the LCI can't be completely thought through.
But one doesn't know that unless one tries to think it through, and if one
isn't aware of it, one won't even have tried.
Paul said:
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.""
;-)
Scott:
Actually, I think this is pretty much on the mark, as my faculties are
pretty dull, in that I spent many years aware of the first level without
seeing its limitations, and I needed instruction from others (Magliola and
Merrell-Wolff directly, but also Barfield in an indirect way) to get past
them. I certainly didn't learn anything from Pirsig in this regard. (Plus, I
am not claiming any sort of "awakening", and I wouldn't be surprised, as I
said recently to Matt K, if Chi-tsang or Nagarjuna wouldn't hit me upside
the head in time-honored Zen fashion for being so dull as to be perversely
philosophically-minded :-)
- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 26 2005 - 19:44:51 GMT