From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 12:14:07 BST
Hi all following this interesting thread (thanks Paul),
Phyllis referred to the distinction between prahna and vijnana knowledge. I was just remembering the
passage in ZMM where Pirsig is talking about Mark Twain and the Mississippi (ie the Huckleberry Finn
story), where the crossing of the river begins as an art, then becomes a 'technology' - so something
is lost, but something else is also gained.
Steve then talked about pre/trans thinking: "The issue you are discussing reminds me of Wilber's
pre/trans fallacy. It is easy to confuse what is pre-rational (e.g. mythology) and what is
trans-rational (intuition?), since both are non-rational. (It also applies to pre-egoic stages of
development (new born) to the trans-egoic (Buddha).)
In another thread Rick quoted from ZMM p16 (which I agree captures the essence of ZMM, and is the
insight that most 'turns me on' from Pirsig's writings): "The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as
comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at
the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean the
Buddha -which is to demean oneself."
In my view it is possible to reconcile prahna and vijnana knowledge, and I think this is what Pirsig
articulates in ZMM. In other words, just as with the pre/trans discussion, it is possible to go
'through' the discursive, intellectual, analytical processes and retain the potential for direct
awareness. I would say that this latter awareness is richer than the original; in other words, that
the static latches of understanding are indeed forms of Quality. So, contrary to Phyllis (and
Suzuki?) I would not say that these are necessarily opposed forms of knowing - they can be two
'phases' or complementary moments in a particular awareness, so enlightenment is about a harmonious
reconciliation of all your Qualities.
I would agree with Steve's example of the mathematician: "What the mathematician perceives is more
like an aesthetic awareness (trans-rational) that is later intellectualized into formulas and
theorems not a rationalization of an emotional (pre-rational) response." (I would also agree with
Phyllis that talk of emotion is a red-herring here. I see emotion as something arising in the
biological level, but changing form as you ascend the levels. Shame is not a biological reaction,
for example, it depends upon a social medium (ie level 3) for its existence).
One last point. I agree with Matt on the pre-trans question, that "the only way to call somebody on
this fallacy is to already have in mind the "correct" way to differentiate pre- from trans-. This
begs the question over the other person because the entire issue is over how to differentiate pre-
from trans-. Its not a fallacy, just a difference in descriptions and a difference in opinion over
which is the better description." So I think it can be a useful and informative distinction to draw
(it provides clarity when describing a perspective); I just don't think it's possible to apply with
conviction in the majority of cases, and is certainly not, on its own, a convincing argument.
Sam
"Great though books may be, friends though they may be to us, they are no substitute for persons,
they are only means of contact with great persons, with men who had more than their own share of
humanity, men who were persons for the whole world and not for themselves alone." (Thomas Merton)
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 : Thu May 15 2003 - 12:51:10 BST