[MD] A Spin-off; now... call it what you will

[Heather Perella]

Hello All,

     I did not fully complete with the last post this
collaboration that I spun-off from different ideas
that seemed to thread each other in a way that called
for these comments that I have applied under this
different posting.

     I began the last posting with a quote by a Lila
Squad member called Donald T Palmgren.  He enacted a
curious thought upon SOM, SOC, and MOQ with an effort
to define philosophy and metaphysics itself.  He
brought up not only Zen, Daoism, and MOQ, but also
similarities that run through other idealistic
metaphysics by Kant and Hegel.  I have made comments
on the 1st posting that tried to understand what
Donald was saying.  I have explained what I could in
the similarities of these different ways brought up by
Donald, and now I find contradictions that bring
identity to these different ways within philosophy or
as he said non-philosophic ways of living.  I also
find what could be contradictions in Donald's line of
thinking in how he tries to define and classify these
different ways.  He are my comments following the
spine that I first posted. 

     
     From the 1st post:  This is a quote from a link
Arlo gave in his posting in [MD] Objectivity by Donald
T Palmgren which Donald said:  "SOM indicates a system
built on the EXCLUSIVITY of S and O (the knowewr and
the known (consciously or otherwise). But "Idealism"
is spicifically defined as a system recognizing the
IDENTITY of S and O.  This gets a bad reaction because
several people in the LS take this to mean
MoQ=Idealism. NO! What I'm saying is MoQ is a TYPE OF
Idealism; I'm not saying that all Idealist systems are
the same. Obviously Zen is different from Kantian
Formalism which is different from Hinduism which is
different from MoQ, etc. They all have the similarity
that they say S and O are actually the same thing. 
What this thing turns out to be, however, (the Tao,
Kant's "Moral Self," Braman or Anatman ["no-self"],
Hegel's "Spirit" or Pirsig's Quality) varies
tremendosly from one system to another. Of corse
Pirsig's idea is not the same as everyone elses... but
it fit's a general type...
     ...Now this is a standerd way to look at
Idealism, but I hope by now that you're all awfully
suspicious. You can see that in my traditional
grouping, I've included a lot of things in "Idealism"
(a sub-set of metaphysics) that aren't even
metaphysical systems -- are not philosophical
activities. Taoism, Zen, Vedanta Hinduism... these
aren't scholarly, literary activities. They're not
opposed to SOM (an explaination about the world);
they're opposed to SOC (an actual 
psychological experience of the world)."

     Still from the 1st Post:  MOQ is according to
Donald an idealist metaphysics which does recognize
the identity of subjects and objects, but is
counterposed to SOM.  MOQ can recognize subjects and
objects as Donald states above by saying subjects and
objects are the same - this is the idealist position
Donald tries to define.  This sameness has been
discussed by other philosophers "the Tao... Hegel's
Spirit... Pirsig's Quality..."
     As Donald has said above:  "...Now this is a
standard way to look at Idealism, but I hope by now
that you're all awfully suspicious."  Why be
suspicious?  Donald says Zen and Dao (Tao) are not
metaphysics, thus, not a philosophy.




     Now my current 2nd comments:  This sameness
Donald headlines as a category that incorporates "the
Tao... Hegel's Spirit... Pirsig's Quality..." as
idealistic philosophies is contradicted by Donald
himself by asserting that the Dao (Tao) and Zen are
not philosophies.  Yet, how they are in the same
category (whatever category title one could give to
this collaboration) is the sameness these 'ways'
conclude, which is subjects and objects are the same. 
So far this is the conclusion I gather if we follow
Donald's line of thinking, but there is more.



     From the 1st Post:  Zen and Dao also do not
oppose SOM, but do oppose SOC which is an actual
psychological experience of the world.  My question
about all of this is this.  Since Zen is not opposed
to SOM and MOQ is opposed to SOM, yet, Zen is opposed
to SOC and MOQ is not opposed to SOC all according to
the comments by Donald then Zen and Dao seem to
contrast MOQ, except for his comment that Dao (I
assume Zen, too) are traditionally grouped with
Pirsig's Quality as idealists philosophies, because a
conclusion they both come to is subject and object are
the same.





     My current 2nd comments continue:  How does Dao
and Zen notice subject and object as the same if
according to Donald Dao and Zen do NOT oppose SOM. 
According to Donald, SOM puts exclusion, thus
separation, between subject and object.  So here
Donald seems to make a contradiction.  Zen and Dao
notice S/O as same and separate.  Maybe this is why
Donald concluded that Zen and Dao, amidst this
contradiction, do oppose the S/O consciousness or SOC.
 
     If Zen masters and Daoist do notice an SOM, thus
separation of reality, and also do notice the sameness
by S/O, this sameness would be experienced, if I
follow Donald's logic correctly, as a result of not
being conscious of S/O world that exists.  Therefore,
one is able to notice another reality that has S/O
being the same which happens when one rejects one's
consciousness of this SOM world that exists.  
     As Zen discusses readily, that is why practice is
continual and constant.  Concluding from Donald's
comments then the S/O world is here.  We are conscious
of it if we do not practice on a regular and
ritualistic basis a rejection of our own living
consciousness of this S/O world.  
     By doing this practice suffering still occurs,
happiness still occurs, but events in life will happen
we handle them with great care, noticing all the
details, but as these events occur we are to realize
their death, too, and let them go when they do go.  We
are not to hold onto a conscious reality that will in
time cultivate naturally a S/O division, because the
world does have this division Donald says about Zen.  
     So we are to notice and recognize the SOM as it
is, and then reject it in our minds.  Life is dying. 
Why not commit suicide to get straight to the point
one might ask?  Well, that would be to reject the
world that has a SOM.  One is only to reject our
consciousness of this world and to let our
consciousness come and go as it will.  In other words
this careful balance is careful concentration without
holding onto what one has seen especially if what one
sees is trying to leave you.  You must let it go. 
Practice and habit through ritual is suppose to make
this a reflex and a natural habit.  This is how I see
Donald's comment that Zen and Daoism do not oppose
SOM, but do oppose an SOC.
     As to Donald's comment that Zen and Daoism are
not philosophies, but MOQ is.  If you read his post
that Arlo linked in [MD] Objectivity, then you would
also notice that Donald says philosophies are written
and Zen and Daoism are not written ways though we all
know their ways are written.  The emphasis in Zen and
Daoism writings are on the action and experience of
what they are writing about.  Some Chan monks have I
Ching (a highly complex mathematical usage can be
involved), Daoist, and unconcern for many written
documents (a touch of Dogen) such as Tsung Tsai who
has been historically documented by George Crane in
his book "Bones of the Master".  So remember there is
variety in ways of thinking and practice.  Another one
for instance, Tibetans hold onto an older tradition in
some of their themes that have been traced to
shamanistic pasts.  
     So reading and writing alone is not Zen and
Daoism, it is the practice of these 'ways' that
completes what they are not only discussing but also
doing.  MOQ is a philosophy and is written and Donald
says nobody has ever reached enlightenment by reading
Lila so the MOQ is supposedly different from Zen and
Daoism because MOQ is therefore a philosophy due to
its' written effort.  I have read some on the MOQ.org
that have posted that MOQ can not be practiced and
that would be unwise for a philosophy the way I
understand philosophy to be, which I will explain
further on in this post.  
     I have difficulty with Donalds explanation of
what is and is not a philosophy.  The difficulty I
have is that a philosophy professor I had in the
university once said that wisdom is 'knowledge put
into action'.  
     This definition of wisdom is included in what he
defined philosophy to be.  He said philosophy is the
'love of wisdom'.  Thus, philosophy is not only
learning idly without any work and effort.  Philosophy
to be truly making headway must fulfill its'
definition and must not be an endeavor to just know
something, but to also put that knowledge into action.
 
     Well, this contradicts Donald's separation of
philosophy from Daoism or Zen.  Because, according to
Donald, these latter two are not scholarly, literary
activities.  I don't know where Donald was thinking
this stuff up and what lead him to have these
conclusions, but I think he's wrong.  
     First, Daoism and Zen have books that use words
to talk about what is happening in their experiences
and these words written are helpful and provide
direction.  Basically Zen does not depend on words,
because when it comes down to it - you must eventually
experience.  Thus, understand and know what is
happening by the experience itself in which words can
only guide but do not 'do you' in other words, words
do not perform your life.  For example, you have to
breath, right?, and it wouldn't be breathing if you
just talked about breathing.  Understand what I'm
saying.  
     This just shows you that Daoist and Zen
practitioners can discuss, but will, in the end in the
fullest of living, not just talk about life, but will
live it, too.  Too much talk not enough doing that is
not healthy.  Yet, from how I have understood
philosophy, even before I ever met that professor, is
that philosophy is not just discussing how or what
life is, but life lived is where philosophy comes from
- this is where we get our philosophies, this earth
with sky as an event, happening and being.
     So I don't quite understand why Donald said
Daoism (which has temples and ritualistic practices)
and Zen are not philosophies.  I do notice that MOQ,
Daoism, Zen, and any other philosophy can be used. 
Some are morally correct and some not.  MOQ is a
practice, because any metaphysics is not just a talk
about what the world is, but is also what the world
is.  The world is happening and full of events.  The
world is beautiful and has a quality that we dream
about constantly.
     To focus on this dreaming for a moment I have an
example.  As the fundamentalist in the nightmare clips
have shown, their dreaming of the world, once thought
up by certain individuals, have contributed to actions
that steer people into violent, immoral, and very
difficult deeds that as I have always said on MOQ.org
the peace we all would want needs to be lived, for it
(peace) to actually be here, but I'll leave further
comments on this nightmare stuff for the other thread.
     Now... call it what you will, but some of the
conclusions that Donald gave I could somehow wiggle
them into an understanding that makes sense as to why
Pirsig has said Daoism and Zen have influenced his MOQ
philosophy.  Yet, why did Donald say Daoism and Zen
are not philosophies?  Why is MOQ?  I think Donald is
incorrect.
     I can't think of the guy, but the philosopher in
the 1800's that contributed the philosophic notion of
the supermen, which Nazi Germany took to mean
something else, even Darwin's selection was an
influence upon the Nazis for what they wanted in their
domestic breeding grounds.  To rid the impure to
create a superhuman race of people.  Ideas are not
just sitting in the heads of all people and what your
current philosophy of life is, is not just in our tiny
skulls, but you live it, too.  
     Do you want to make changes?  Sure and we try to
and that's how philosophies live on and try to put
knowledge into action with the wisdom that someday
that knowledge will not just sit in your dream but
walk our walk, also.  What are you dreaming?  I hope
for our children's sake something beautiful, something
morally good - something quality!


Thanks,
Spiritual Adirondack (SA)     
 

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