From: phyllis bergiel (neilfl@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Fri May 16 2003 - 16:08:16 BST
Sam said:
>
> 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?)
"From the human point of view we talk of prajna and vijnana as the integral
understanding of reality respectively. We speak of these things in order to
satisfy our human understanding. Animals and plants do not divide
themselves; they just live and act, but humans have awakened this
consciousness. ..To satisfy this demand we talk about having satori, or the
awakening of this self-identity consciousness" Suzuki - "Zen Knowledge" in
"The Meaning of Satori" Originally from The Middle Way, The Journal of hte
Buddhist Society 1969. London.
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.
>
Agreed, sort of. I had originally thought it was more about these Qualities
never being split, but with that self-awareness, I see the point. On a more
societal level, I think it is a caution against the sceintism that
accompanies modernity, and doesn't value the undissected quality. This can
result in planning and development that doesn't take into account "quality
of life" issues.
The reason I include the extended quote, and another recommendation is that
for exploring this idea of consciousness from both eastern and western
angles, the Kyoto School - Kitaro Nishida's discussion of Sartre and
Suzuki--are excellent examinations of where the two cultures meet. To me,
Pirsig covers the western synthesis, the others the eastern.
> 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).
> True about shame, but what about pity, compassion, love both filial and
erotic? I would say the first two belong to the social, while the latter
are biological. Comments?
> 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.
>
>
>
> "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
>
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 : Fri May 16 2003 - 16:03:44 BST