Re: MD Quality, DQ and SQ

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Thu Dec 01 2005 - 23:06:26 GMT

Previous message: gav: "Re: MD opposite of quality"
Maybe in reply to: Paul Turner: "MD Quality, DQ and SQ"
Next in thread: David M: "Re: MD Quality, DQ and SQ"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Ant,

Scott stated November 26th:

.so my point was that IF Pirsig had grasped the second-level understanding,
then he should have taught the first-level but let one know that this too
must be rethought -- and he shouldn't have treated the subject as
metaphysics, since one thing one must do when one goes beyond Newtonian
physics is realize that its most fundamental assumptions (absolute,
Euclidean space and time) are wrong.

Ant McWatt comments:

As I noted in Section A.4. THEORIES OF EVERYTHING in my PhD, the universe we
know is possibly only one of many in a 'multi-verse' where Newtonian
absolute time could possibly be the norm on the larger scale of things. See
texts on M-theory such as Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell" (2001).
Moreover, for many everyday purposes Newtonian mechanics is the one to use
because its calculations are far simpler to operate than the equations
employed in quantum physics. To state that "Newtonian physics is wrong" is
therefore wrong from a pragmatic point of view. Newtonian physics is fine
for building a house and, if I remember rightly, even a moon landing.

Scott:
You're missing the point. Sure, if I want to build a bridge or go to the
moon, Newtonian mechanics works just fine. But no one is going to use it as
a basis for "what is really going on" questions, for example, for building
theories about the origin of the universe. So in metaphysics one should not
start with a first-level understanding of mysticism if one is aware of a
second-level.

Ant continued:
So coming back to the Pirsig analogy unless you are thinking of becoming a
serious scholar in Buddhist philosophy or a spiritual leader, the second and
third levels pointed to by Chi-tsang seem unnecessary. Moreover, as
Chi-tsang emphasises, only "practitioners of dull faculties" should need to
go through the instruction of all three levels of the two truths - the first
level which the MOQ mainly applies to - is usually sufficient.

Scott:
Yes, it would be better for a practitioner that he only needs the first
level explained, but only if the further levels unfold for him. However, it
is better that the further levels be explained to those with dull faculties
than it is to be stuck in the first-level, without awareness of the other
levels, because in the latter case one produces errors in one's metaphysics,
as happened to Pirsig.

Ant McWatt comments:

Now I can see exactly what you are talking about (!!!) I would agree that
Chi-tsang's "second-level understanding" of the two truths is not (at least,
explicitly) mentioned in LILA. However, as I eventually recognised from
Buddhist texts, correspondence from Pirsig and his comments in "Lila's
Child", it is strongly implied that the MOQ agrees with Mahayana Buddhism in
that samsara = nirvana. Unlike Chi-tsang, I do think Pirsig tends to
emphasise the Dynamic because the MOQ recognises the evolutionary
development of reality's creative universal dance (lila) though remember
this dance also requires a static partner. As I mentioned in my previous
post (from November 24th) this recognition is important because it gives a
rational purpose to the universe so avoiding primitive ideas such as
reincarnation and a universe created by an anthropomorphic God.

Scott:
The problem is that the MOQ's rational purpose, "evolving toward DQ" is,
according to the second-level, wrong.

Ant continued:
I read Chi-tsang's third level as a warning not to take statements about the
static and Dynamic viewpoints of reality too literally i.e. not to be
attached to them or, just as importantly, their negations. Again, this
pragmatic sentiment is implied by Pirsig in LILA ("the pencil is mightier
than the pen"), his correspondence and other post-LILA comments.

Scott:
No argument.

Ant had stated November 24th:

There has to be limits on exploring further levels of understanding or a
book such as LILA would never be finished. Where an author places a limit
is a pragmatic decision in the central message he wants to convey and the
general audience he wants to reach out to. In my humble opinion, I think
Pirsig had the pragmatic balance just about right.

Scott replied November 26th:

I would agree if it weren't presented as metaphysics.

Ant McWatt comments:

Pirsig has given so many qualifications about the MOQ being a
"contradiction-in-terms" in LILA and elsewhere (rather than a
straightforward metaphysics), I can't take this remark too seriously. For
instance:

"Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act since
it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher mystic
one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to
control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to
devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within
a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right." (LILA, final
chapter)

Scott:
As I see it, it is because he started from the first-level that he is overly
concerned about being metaphysical. This is a common viewpoint of the
Watts/Northrop crowd. But recall the quote from Magliola, about the
difference between differential and centric mystics, in which the former are
not ashamed of employing "rigorous rationalism" in confronting a koan. (Just
to be clear, this does NOT mean that one tries to "capture" DQ in a static
intellectual formula.)

Ant said November 24th:

I think the biggest problem with traditional Buddhism is the idea of
reincarnation which is - more or less - replaced in the MOQ by the idea of
cosmological evolution (towards DQ). I'm not completely convinced that
reincarnation doesn't occasionally happen (in some form, anyway) but the
scientific evidence that evolution occurs is far stronger. As such, I would
bet my bottom dollar that Siddhartha would have taken Pirsig's side if he
had been as aware of modern science (and the ideas on evolution) as we are.

Now aren't you surprized I took that line? :-)

Scott replied November 26th:

I would take that bet, that is, I bet he wouldn't take Pirsig's side even if
aware of modern science, etc. See Barfield for why.

Ant McWatt comments:

I still think that you would be the poorer! For a start, Owen Barfield's
main thesis in "Saving the Appearances" is tenuous as he has failed to take
into account the widespread use of hallucinogenic drugs by "primitive" and
ancient cultures. These drugs would produce the Gods, nature spirits and
angels that these people experienced (i.e. something like Barfield's
"original participation") and, moreover, primitive tribes" are still using
these drugs in places such as the Amazon Forest where shamanism is
practised.

Anyone so disposed can experience these spirits today if they are minded to
as recently indicated by a British TV program/me on Channel 4 called
"Extreme Celebrity Detox" where a group of celebrities were placed with an
isolated forest tribe in Peru to "re-balance" their lives. As one of the
celebrities related - after taking the local hallucinogenic drink - the
trees in the forest came alive with "spirits" which "spoke" to the
participants about rather serious life issues and initiated quite profound
spiritual changes in the latter. Anyway, the home page of this "Extreme
Celebrity Detox" program/me can be found at:

http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/C/celebritydetox/index.html

though it does tend to concentrate on the more sensationalist aspects of the
participants' experience.