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

[Heather Perella]

Hello dmb, Kevin, and others,

     David quoted from Pirsig:  "By even using the
term "Quality" he had already 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."

     I like this.  It goes straight to the point.

     David quoted from Pirsig:  "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."

     This is exactly what I am trying to explain. 
Pirsig explains this so well.  This is exactly why I
feel a need to delve into many religions and
philosophies to bring together a SQ explanation for
what I experience in my life.  DQ is very difficult to
explain.  Once somebody can explain DQ with the
clarity, understanding, and meaning that is satisfying
to others we could say that person is a Zen master.

     David said:  "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."

     Yes, you put that so well, "maybe... not fair to
weigh you down..."  That's why I am trying to have
Kevin define some of his questions or statements with
his own words so I can go 'into his world' if possible
so to understand where he is coming from, using
concepts or his words to cut down on the problems
translations bring up at times.  By translations I am
just talking about one world view - another world view
coming together sitting at the discussion table.  One
world view could be an idea we have and another world
view could be somebody else's idea of something. 
Similar to what Kevin mentioned when Pirsig and John
had different definitions of the same reality (beer
can and shim shock).
     Or you also could say, for those biologists out
there, trying to integrate subspecies with a larger
context of species.

     Kevin said:  "That is, I'd say both support my
contention
that mysticism is not DQ, that "Mysticism and mystical
experiences,
because they have meaning, are within some SQ
framework."  And that "DQ apart from some SQ framework
is meaningless."

     I get what your saying now.  I agree, in the
sense, that mysticism needs a SQ framework in order to
be describable meaning.  Yet, DQ goes straight to the
aspect of mysticism that is unexplainable, yet,
personally known in some quirky, known, yet, unknown,
seemingly endless kind of way.

     Kevin said:  "Within this context, "the central
reality of mysticism," I'd say "You understand
[Quality] without definition, ahead of definition" is
inconsistent with the Metaphysics of Quality in the
sense that to understand something is to assign
meaning to it.  If Pirsig were to change this one
word, "understand" to "experience" then I'd have no
problem with the statement."

     "...to understand something is to assign meaning
to it."  The way I think of 'understand' is opposed to
'confused'.  To allow quality to confuse oneself is to
(1) go into Lila's culture of one in which ones'
mentality is adjusting and balance is setting in, in
the best manner possible, or (2) one could go on ahead
and conform to a static pattern that you may not agree
with, but one may just give up and accept it because
one knows of no other way.  DQ offers another way out
of what a culture may consider (1) insanity, or (2)
conformity.  DQ offers a 3rd way where creativity is
at work and one is not tied to a culture's definition
of one's own experience (as insane or static
conformity that one knows don't fit any longer, but
the culture holds onto them too long [static
latching]).  Therefore one may understand something
that has no definition and not be confused by it. 
Why?  I would rather try to understand something that
exists but is not defined, as opposed to being
confused by it.  Don't you think the world has these
defined 'things' that at times also have a depth to
them that is noticed but really difficult to define
due to their seemingly endless depth full of life?  
     And yes, replacing understand with experience
makes sense and I  would say that is another angle in
the approach to making sense of all of this (life).

     Kevin said:  "To say that one can have a peak
experience of this kind and yet assign no meaning to
invalidate the experience, in my opinion."

     You could assign meaning, and also notice the
depth to life that is very difficult to come up with
the words to describe such a depth.  The words assign
meaning, but the actuality of That which you are
providing meaning about or That which is giving
meaning to you, could go on and on and on and on and
all words become what I could call 'surface tools' for
something that is not merely talked about, but when
experienced, is much more than just that (that being
the 'surface tools').
     For instance, I am this body, yet, when I see
dead people I see their body.  Their body is so much
of who they are as a person, yet, when dead something
else is missing, something a bit deeper, yet, so much
of who they are, too.  I would call it their 'spirit'.

Thanks everybody,
SA     
   

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com