From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Dec 25 2003 - 20:16:48 GMT
Khoo and All
24 Dec. you wrote:
> There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
> miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.
> -Albert Einstein
Today you were the only voice and I got the chance to study your
input.
> When I first read Lila I was not comfortable with the introduction of
> the Static Quality and Dynamic Quality division:
> As far as I understand Static Quality to be persistent patterns at the
> inorganic, biological, social and intellectual levels as perceived by
> Pirsig, I can correlate this to the physical, bio-chemical, biological,
> social and intellectual patterns that arise as manifestations from time
> to time, exist and interact with each other.
"From time to time" sounds a little peculiar, I would say a static
level must be permanent to serve as the base for the next one.
> The human "self" itself one
> of these manifestations, evolved from enfolded and implicate patterns
> in a universe of interdependent origination, is set on an unconscious
> course to persistently and ceaselessly recreate itself and in countless
> manifestations (dissipative structures, morphogenetic fields and memes
> are but some aspects).
Terribly subtle this. Is it an objection to the MOQ ..or? If we by
"self" mean "self-awareness", I find the Jaynes-applied-to-Pirsig
model satisfactory: Language turning internal - to thoughts - which
created a thinking self (hence self-awareness) in contrast to the
(social) individual. This self immediately created a "world" - hence
SOM.
> Because this cosmic drama (samsara) is precisely where humans and all
> beings are caught in, enjoying its pleasures and suffering its pain as
> well, the only release is to consciously no longer take part by leaving
> this cycle. Static Quality in itself is therefore neutral, neither good
> nor bad, as patterns go - however the clinging and the desire to persist
> as patterns is not good in any form. In buddhistic terms the karmic
> vector of attachment, the driving force of the patterns, does not lead
> to Good.
Perceiving static values isn't necessarily to cling to them (that is
perhaps what you are saying).
> Pirsig's introduction of an undefined Dynamic Quality in Lila serves to
> illustrate, in my view, the residual, underlying fundamental nature of
> an uncreated and unmanifested universe that cannot be measured,
> perceived and identified by the senses. In Buddhism, the letting go of a
> pattern, of any pattern, is considered good, and each step in this
> direction is a step taken towards realising nirvana or in my view,
> Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality here is, as Static Quality is -
> neutral. The morality of our actions hence is determined by the degree
> with which we cling on to static quality (patterns of any value) or
> release a static quality (patterns of any value) of its hold on our
> imagined "selves".
Yes, and intellect is the pattern hardest to detach oneself from.
> Upon achieving Enlightenment or the total release from the hold of
> Static Quality, the "self" has indeed no more use for the 4 noble
> truths, 8-fold path and 5/10/227 precepts. As far as the "self" is
> concerned, when enlightened, buddhism as an intellectual pattern
> disappears and dissolves with it.
If the MOQ is compared to Buddhism - or vice versa - it can't be a
fully integrated intellectual pattern, it is something beyond from
where the "samsara" context is seen.
> There is no need for a buddha
> himself/herself to maintain buddhism as an intellectual pattern, because
> while he lives, he is IT, a living role model and example for attaining
> enlightnement.
Exactly. A true moqist is beyond intellect, but the "nominalist"
moqist regards the MOQ the apex of intellect.
> For the rest of humanity, buddhism remains an
> intellectual pattern
Right, this double role of the MOQ I have been struggling to
formulate: a budding 5th, a rebel 4th ...this some find ugly, but
there is ambiguity here.
> - a proven approach and practice to dissolve all
> patterns, including itself - and will still exist; bequeathed as a gift
> from the buddha of the time. The teachings of the this epoch's Buddha-
> more precisely called the Dhamma, may flourish or wane with the times.
> However, it does not matter - as there is and nor should there be any
> clinging to any intellectual pattern, idea nor institution.
Right, intellect is the toughest to part with.
> Dynamic
> Quality is always there, available for any aspirant to experience.
> The problems always begin when "selves" unconsciously cling to the
> Static Quality of intellectual patterns and these lead to the age-old
> Metaphysicians' Lament: of how to explain to mere mortals the futility
> of attachment to fleeting patterns. Moses, Christ, Mohammad and others
> who have discerned Dynamic Quality sought to explain this futility in
> the language and context of their times - only to have their followers
> latch on to these patterns as if they were the only route to their
> salvation. Over time, their words became entrenched as dogma when
> ironically the essence of all religions derived from metaphysical
> insight are all the same.
Here I don't fully agree. Religions of old (the Semitic kind) was a
tribal "my god is stronger than yours" thing and had nothing to do
with enlightenment. It was all about rituals and obedience to words
written on stone tablets; social patterns of the social era. But there
started a liberation from the social "law" (culminating with Jesus)
simultaneously with what culminated with intellect's emergence in
Greece ...and Buddhism in the Far East.
> Having perceived Dynamic Quality, it is also Pirsig's Lament to have to
> explain its metaphysics to western civilisation, built on the foundation
> of a subject-object metaphysics, with the placement of the individual at
> the centre of its hierarchical universe.
Subject-object metaphysics must necessarily become MOQ's
intellectual level in this transformation act where the focus has
been and from where it must move to achieve enlightenment.
> The folly of the intellectual level is that it promises what it cannot
> deliver. The mind is extremely adept at building up intellectual
> patterns, one of which is the subject-object divide and subsequent
> subject-object metaphysics, arguing that the only reality is the reality
> perieved by its limited senses. In Richard Bach's words : "Argue for
> your limitations and they are yours"
Well put, but I believe that intellect IS the subject/object divide
...every last bit of it. Like the rest of the static levels it is "samsara"
but the highest samsara. SOM - before the MOQ - does not merely
say that senses are reality ...that is its objective half .. it has an
idealist half too. As MOQ's intellect it becomes the VALUE of
objectivism over idealism.
I will have to return to the rest of your great post as not to make it
too long.
Till then. Bo
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 Dec 25 2003 - 19:15:42 GMT