[MD] dharma, the way, zazen, path, the morning fog, etc...

[david buchanan]

Kevin, SA and all MOQers:

Kevin quoted Pirsig:
The first step down from Phædrus' statement that "Quality is the Buddha" is 
a statement that such an assertion, if true, provides a rational basis for a 
unification of three areas of human experience which are now disunified. 
These three areas are Religion, Art and Science. If it can be shown that 
Quality is the central term of all three, and that this Quality is not of 
many kinds but of one kind only, then it follows that the three disunified 
areas have a basis for introconversion.

Kevin commented on the quote:
I think Pirsig has correctly identified the three primary areas of human 
experience.  I include philosophy in the area of science because of its 
insistence on logical reasoning.  Although art and religion are sometimes 
amenable to rational analysis they are not constrained by it.

dmb says:
My comments will follow a short book review, by Dan Dick, which I just found 
at the "Congregational Leaders" website:

The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion
by Ken Wilber (Broadway Books, 1998)

Deep thinkers are few and far between. The number of true philosophers at 
the close of the twentieth century is despairingly small. Once upon a time, 
thinkers crossed the lines of their own disciplines to be well-versed in 
arts, sciences, letters, and religion. Specialization is the reality of our 
day, and we suffer from a dearth of eclectic thinkers.

Ken Wilber qualifies as a philosopher in the classic sense of the word. 
Drawing from a wide knowledge of religion, science, art, culture, 
philosophy, psychology, and history, Wilber offers challenging insights into 
the current relationship between science and religion in our day. Wilber's 
thesis states that the time has come -- indeed is long past -- for science 
and religion to discover a common ground that will usher in a much-needed 
integration as we enter the twenty-first century. Wilber calls both leaders 
of science and leaders of the world's religions to set aside 
self-righteousness to better examine the commonalties of the two spheres.

The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion proposes a 
new way of dealing with differences between religion and science. Rather 
than continuing to attempt to discredit the other, Wilber examines what 
might be entailed in developing a common means of evaluating the intrinsic 
merits of both science and religion. Drawing upon a comprehensive knowledge 
of the history of both science and religion, Wilber proposes the application 
of a scientific method not bound by limiting empirical standards. The 
important relationships among art, science, and morals (the beautiful, the 
true, and the good) are lifted forth as areas for integration. The equally 
important relationship between modernism and post-modernism is examined to 
lay the groundwork for a marriage of religion and science that honors both 
and offers a reasonable alternative to the fragmentation that currently 
occurs in our world.

dmb resumes:
I believe that both Pirsig and Wilber are working with a distinction Kant 
first articulated. Ken Wilber offers a lot more detail on these areas or 
domains, which he calls "the Big Three". As he explains it, "Religion" is 
the collective domain, "Art" is the realm of the individual and "Science" is 
the domain if objects. Religion is about "we", Art is about "I" and Science 
is about "it". And he uses this distinction to explain the historical 
process of moving from a pre-modern paradigm, where these three domains are 
not yet distinct from each other, to a modern world view where they are 
distinct. The crisis of modernity, he says, is that these domains are not 
just free to explore their own kind of truth, which is a good thing, but 
that they have gone too far in their independence and have become 
dangerously dis-associated. Much like Pirsig, he says this crisis requires a 
re-integration of the Big Three. Not to go backwards and undo the 
differentiation, that is the part we like. But to re-integrate them in the 
sense that there is no conflicts or contradictions between the separate 
kinds of truth, so that one illuminates and completes the others rather than 
oppose them as some kind of rival truth. This is a gross oversimplification, 
but is only meant to get you generally oriented to the context and meaning 
of these terms.

Kevin said to SA:
I disagree. (That Mysticism is DQ.) Mysticism and mystical experiences, 
because they have meaning, are within some SQ framework.  Again, DQ apart 
from some SQ framework is meaningless.  At least this is how I understand 
the Metaphysics of Quality.

dmb says:
I believe you are mistaken, Kevin. The meaning is static, yes, but that 
comes after the fact. And forgive me if I'm being overly suspicious here, 
but I'd guess you have a specific "SQ framework" in mind here. In any case, 
Pirsig identifies Quality with mysticism repeatedly and in various contexts.

Bantam's hardcover edition of LILA. Page 107:
"By even using the term "Quality" he had alreay violated the nothingness of 
mystic reality...  Even the name, "Quality," was a kind of definition since 
it tended to associate mystic reality with certain
fixed and limited understandings."

Page 109:
"American Indian mysticism is the same platypus in a world divided  
primarily into classic and romantic patterns as under a subject-object 
divison... Since this whole metaphysics had started with an attempt to 
explain Indian mysticism Phaedrus finally abandoned this classic-romatic 
split as a choice for a primary divison to the metaphysics of Quality"  (And 
uses static & Dynamic instead)

Pirsig in ZMM chapter 20:
"Phaedrus remembered Hegel had been regarded as a bridge between Western and 
Oriental philosophy. The Vedanta of the Hindus, the Way of the Taoists, even 
the Buddha had been described as an absolute monism similar to Hegel's 
philosophy. Phaedrus doubted at the time, however, whether mystical Ones and 
metaphysical monisms were introconvertable since mystical Ones follow no 
rules and metaphysical monisms do. His Quality was a metaphysical entity, 
not a mystic one. Or was it? What was the difference?"

Pirsig in Lila chapter 30:
"The MOQ associates religious mysticism with Dynamic Quality but it would 
certainly be a mistake to think that the MOQ endorses the static beliefs of 
any particular religious sect. Phaedrus thought sectarian religion was a 
static social fallout of DQ and that while some sects had fallen less than 
others, none of them told the whole truth."

Again from chapter 30:
"He thought about how once this integration occurs and DQ is identified with 
religious mysticism it produces an avalanche of information as to what 
Dynamic Quality is. A lot of this relgious mysticism is just low-grade 
"yelping about God" of course, but if you search for the sources of it and 
don't take the yelps too literally a lot of interesting things turn up."

Kevin said to SA:
I make a distinction between mind and heart.  As I said, I see science and 
philosophy, because of their insistence on logical reasoning, in the realm 
of the mind.  And I see art and religion in the realm of the heart.  It's 
these distinctions that are the basis for my saying that the Metaphysics of 
Quality appears to be incomplete.

dmb says:
I disagree. I think its your understanding of the MOQ that "appears to be 
incomplete". More specifically, I think you're a bit mixed up about the Big 
Three here. Maybe its not fair to weigh you down with Kant, Wilber and the 
crisis of modernity, although I sincerely hope that helps. But just to keep 
things in Pirsigian terms, think of it this way: The Good, the True and the 
Beautiful are three kinds of Quality. Pirsig is trying to integrate 
religion, science and art by making these into three different species of 
the same animal, if you will.

I'm not sure what you mean by putting art and religion in the "heart" and 
all that, but I've used the imagery myself in this forum. Although it was 
long ago, I vaguely recall making a case for the integration of the heart 
and the head. So I want to be sympathetic, but I really don't really see 
what you're doing here. I hesitate to add a complication at this point, but 
I think that the heart and mind is best thought of in terms of the levels of 
static quality rather than the three domains.

It can get complicated, but let me cite a relatively simple example to 
illustrate the point. Let's say that social and intellectual values 
correspond to the heart and the head. Then introduce one of the Big Three 
into that equation, in this case let's say morals. Again, we'd be talking 
here about "we" and the Good, collective truths, if you will. This domain is 
not limited to the heart or the heart, but rather can exist at both levels. 
Within this domain, there is pre-modern mythic religion and social level 
morals against vice but there is also scientifically literate spiritual 
practice and the philosophical study of ethics and evolution of human rights 
and international law. See, the "we" domain evolves up through the levels. 
There are "we" values at both the social and intellectual levels, and so it 
goes for the other domains.

As I mentioned earlier, these domains were not yet differentiated in 
pre-modern times so that the establishment of art, science and religion as 
seperate domains is itself a product of the intellectual level's evolution. 
They all existed at the social level, but they were still part of a single 
package, if you will. To put it roughly, scientific truth and the production 
of art were subordinate to church dogma and they all served a single truth 
together. Freeing art and science from the church defines modernity and 
marks the emergence of intellectual values on wide, historical scale. See, 
all of these domains are along on the evolutionary ride, or at least one 
would hope they are.

And finally, I think the ideal is to integrate the levels AND the domains. I 
think the ideal is to make things work together both vertically AND 
horizontially. We want the good, the true, and the beautiful to work in the 
heart and the head. That might seem unrealistic or even grandiose, but its 
easier than it sounds. How can we achieve such an ideal of wholeness and 
harmony? All it takes is one brief encounter with "the cloud of unknowing", 
which is the name of Scott's bong.

Cough, cough, cough.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/