From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 28 2004 - 23:35:29 BST
DM and all MOQers:
dmb said:
In an ultimate sense, say the mystics, reality is undivided. And yet the
task is to realize that. Prior to the completion of that task we are all
cursed with the belief in a world of separate objects, of dividedness. This
illusory world is the static world, and normally we don't think of that as
God. That's why neither intellectual speculations nor theological dogmas can
be adequate substitutes for the actual experience. They're part of what
needs to be let go of in order to shatter that illusion.
DM replied:
I think that what you and Sam say can be tied together. The whole point of
MOQ
is to replace SOM, what SOM does is to forget DQ aspects of experience and
try to understand the cosmos in terms of SQ aspects of experience. There is
therefore a falling away to the pole of SQ in SOM that takes us away from
the underlying unity of experience. To re-discover DQ is therefore to move
back towards unity. But the whole is quality or SQ & DQ. SQ is not an
illusion, SQ without DQ is the illusion, or SQ as the totality/whole. The
genuine wholeness of experience underlies of includes SQ/DQ. Does that makes
sense?
dmb says:
I think it makes sense, but I don't entirely agree. As I see it there are
two distinctly different but interconnected things going on here. On one
hand we have the undivided mystical reality and the illusion of dividedness
that language imposes. On the other hand we have the MOQ with its DQ/sq
split. Its pretty easy to see that the MOQ's sq refers to the divided world,
the world of definitions and definable things and that DQ refers to the
undivided mystical reality. There are at least two problems with your
explanation, however. First, the illusion of dividedness is not created by
or exclusive to SOM. All languages divide and create this illusion. That's
why both kinds of Indians, the ones with the dots and the ones with the
feathers, have had to develop ways to overcome this illusion...
Pirsig wrote:
"They (mystics) share a common belief that the fundamental nature of reality
is outside language; that language splits things up into parts while the
true nature of reality is undivided. Zen, which is a mystic religion, argues
that the illusion of dividedness can be overcome by meditation. The Native
American Church argues that peyote can force-feed a mystic understanding
upon those who were normally resistant to it,..." LILA (ch 5)
dmb continues:
Don't get me wrong. I think there is some truth in your view because SOM
basically insists that this illusory world of dividedness is not only real,
it tells us its the ONLY thing that's really real. It sort of culturally
locks in the illusion and makes it very difficult to overcome. But I don't
think we can overcome this age-old dream by switching from one metaphysical
system to even a much better one. As much of an improvment as it may be,
both SOM and the MOQ are both linguistic divisions of that undivided
reality. They are both static and are part of that divided reality.
In chapter nine Pirsig says:
"Actually the issue before him was not whether there should be a metaphysics
of Quality or not. There already IS a metaphysics of Quality. A
subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first
division of Quality - the first slice of undivided experience - is into
subjects and objects."
dmb concludes:
Its worth pointing out that Pirsig does not make the static/Dynamic split
until the middle of chapter nine. Prior to that he is still talking about
everything in terms of "Quality", his one-word metaphysical system left over
from ZAMM. Don't let that confuse you. It doesn't matter if the divisions
are SOM, MOQ or consist of just one word. They all violate the mystic unity
of reality.
In chapter nine Pirsig says:
"Its alright to condemn somebody else's bad metaphysics but you can't
replace it with a metaphysics that consists of just one word. By even using
the term 'Quality' he had already violated the nothingness of mystic
reality."
Thanks,
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 : Sun Mar 28 2004 - 23:39:50 BST