From: khoo hock aun (hockaun@pc.jaring.my)
Date: Fri Dec 26 2003 - 13:45:03 GMT
Bo and others:
It is a little bit eerie to be in an MOQ ghost town with all the much more
eloquent participants away on holiday. Well since I have the floor to
myself, if only momentarily, I will indulge in a longer-than-usual reply to
comments which I think important.
>>Khoo said :
> >patterns that arise as manifestations from time
> >to time, exist and interact with each other.
>
> Bo said :
> "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.
Khoo:
"From time to time" is used to illustrate the tranciency of patterns - they
may be only for a few moments, for a few years or for aeons - but they do
not last forever. I disagree with you - in that patterns may be static but
they are never permanent. Patterns need not also be permanent to serve as
the base for the next level of patterns. Neither are the next level of
patterns permanent either. The subject-object dichotomy rests on the belief
of a permanent "self" and a permanent "edifice" to build social and
intellectual patterns around. On what basis does your concept of the
permanence of a static level arise anyway ?
>> Khoo said:
> > 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).
>
> Bo said:
> 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.
Khoo:
Reality is necessarily subtle - and the MOQ ( I do not object to the MOQ) is
one of the many ways of expressing this subtle reality; the MOQ that
juxtaposes an undefined Dynamic Quality with patterns of Static Quality. The
"self " referred to in Buddhism is an aggregation of the senses of mind and
matter; a thinking "self" capable of generating intellectual concepts and a
physical "self" capable of defining a physical identity through its five
sense-doors. It would be different if by self-awareness the "self" were
aware that it has no "self". The self is a pattern that is also
transistory - as with all other patterns - and the persistence of the "self"
in convincing itself that it is permanent is central to the subject-object
divide. But this self has no permanent existence in itself.
>> Khoo:
> > 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.
> Bo:
> Perceiving static values isn't necessarily to cling to them (that is
> perhaps what you are saying).
>
Khoo:
Yes, one can perceive static patterns, but the overall tendency is to cling
to them, especially if the predominant worldview is that of the
subject-object divide. The manifestation of a "self" distinct and separate
from a universe of objects, is brought about by an attachment to inorganic,
biological, social and intellectual patterns and this attachment is an
immensely powerful, at times overpowering force for the "self" to persist
and perpetuate over and over again.
>> Khoo:
> > 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".
Bo :
> Yes, and intellect is the pattern hardest to detach oneself from.
Khoo:
The intellectual patterns generated by the mind can extremely addictive -
and many "selves" are totally absorbed by them
to the detriment of everything else. Intellect may help the "self" to
understand reality but can never help the 'self" to achieve a direct
experience of reality. As I have mentioned before, I believe intellect to be
vicarious knowledge: the mind's idea of reality not a direct experience of
reality itself. The intellect may also lead the "self" to imagine it as an
individual with inherent rights on the basis of its intellect and consider
that the individual is superior to all other patterns beneath it. The
intellect generates patterns of Static Quality, but when combined with
notions of individuality, becomes an intellectual level separated from
Dynamic Quality, a metaphysical dead-end.
>> Khoo:
> > 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.
>
> Bo :
> 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.
>
Khoo:
The MOQ, Buddhism, or any other intellectual pattern that attempts to
describe the "something beyond" are intellectual patterns. But if it serves
to help free the hold of patterns on "a pattern" then for that "pattern" it
must cease to exist as a pattern. This freeing of the hold of patterns is
not an event that can be achieved intellectually - it must take place with
direct experience and metaphysical insight. The Metaphysics of Quality, as
an intellectual description of reality or as an intellectual pattern must be
distinguished from undefined Dynamic Quality - which is that "something
beyond" all these patterns we see.
Khoo:
> > 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.
Khoo:
I have a very real problem with this; perhaps it is only semantical. What
might be a true MOQist and what would be a nominalist MOQist be ? Are there
any true MOQists on this list or are we all nominalists ? You say the
"nominalist" notion is that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern, regarded as
the highest quality pattern of the intellectual level but this
automatically makes the MOQ a dead end in itself. It is Dynamic Quality that
is beyond intellect, transcended through direct experience but not the
Metaphysics of Quality which is merely a collection of the most general
statements of a hierarchical structure of thought about Quality, both
Dynamic and Static.
Khoo:
> > For the rest of humanity, buddhism remains an
> > intellectual pattern
>
> Bo:
> 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.
Khoo:
Again, the assignment of levels is an arbitrary one - the conceptualisation
of a fifth level assumes permament levels first, second, third and fourth
levels, each hierarchical and building upon each other. What if all the
levels exist at the same time and there is not fixed hierarchy or
stratification of levels ? It maybe that it is necessarily ambiguous and and
it may be useful not to have a too rigid (static?) frame of mind when trying
to understand the MOQ, both DQ and SQ.
>> Khoo:
> > 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.
>
> Bo:
> 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.
Khoo:
I am always amazed that even in the 21st century the static patterns of
referring to East Asia as Far East still persist, a throwback to the good
ole' colonial era when Europe was the center of the world and its colonies
were on the far side of the world. Norway would be in the Far North-West
where the Middle Kingdom was concerned back in the 15th Century, but then
the Middle Kingdom did not have colonies. But I digress. :>)
I would say that the intellectual level was already manifest for as long as
mankind could think, and for the 50,000 years man took to reach every corner
of the earth; how was it - as defined by Pirsig, to be the creation and
manipulation of symbols. I would venture that it did not require symbols for
man to think and generate concepts about his world and beyond. I would also
venture that it was much more commonplace for man to experience Dynamic
Quality directly. I would also venture there were already thriving
societies and intellects at work for the last several thousand years. The
intellectual level certainly did not start with the Greeks - only this
particular version of the subject-object divide/metaphysics that Western
civilisation has been built up from.
I also do not think that religions of the old (Semitic or otherwise) arose
as competiting tribal beliefs and their origins assigned to social level.
Religions, had on the contrary, everything to do with enlightenment - with
mysticism, with meditation and with experiencing Dynamic Quality. The
metaphysicians, humans who saw through the patterns in their meditations,
who "saw the light" so to speak - each, I repeat, tried to convey their
insights in the language and context of their times - and over the years,
after they had long gone, only then did the social patterns take over - and
their followers blindly made their word dogma.
The intellectual level was already pervasive in South and East Asia 2,500
years and it was not buddhism that gave birth to it. If anything, buddhism
arose as a counterpoint to the philosophical communities of the time to
point out that the intellect, for all its fascinations, was a metaphysical
dead-end. And this is what I believe the religions of old, especially their
mystical inspired schools tried to do.
>>Khoo:
> > 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.
> Bo:
> 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.
Khoo:
Subject-Object Metaphysics is only one of the many varied concepts,
including the MOQ itself, produced by the mind's prolific intellectual
activity. As far as the MOQ is concerned, the intellectual level comprises
of intellectual patterns, patterns, nevertheless that have to be dissolved
in order to experience Dynamic Quality. If I may point out, Compassion as an
intellectual concept, activity and practice is premised on a "non-self" the
anti-thesis of a subject-object outlook or divide. Jainism and some aspects
of vegetarianism are based on this outlook But the encompassing compassion
of feeling the suffering of all beings in samsara derives from Dynamic
Quality.
>>Khoo:
> > 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
> > perceived by its limited senses. In Richard Bach's words : "Argue for
> > your limitations and they are yours"
>
> Bo:
> 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.
>
Khoo:
Are you arguing for a place for intellect in the MOQ that validates
subject-object metaphysics in the hierarchy of levels and without which ther
e can be no transcending to Dynamic Quality ? If I read the above right,
and I have tried, albiet unsuccessfully, to make sense of the SOLAQI
argument, would you be saying that SOM as MOQ's intellect validates material
objectivism, therefore giving it value ? What kind of value would that be
in terms of SQ/DQ ? Patterns/Unpatterned Reality ? With all due respect, I
must say that there is no such thing as the "highest" samsara. Samsara is
the wheel of rebirth, the 31 planes of existence where all interdependent
origination takes place, where all patterns form, from the inorganic,
biological, social to the intellectual levels (in Pirsigian terms) and
dissolve again.
Thank you
Best Regards
Khoo Hock Aun
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 Dec 26 2003 - 23:11:45 GMT