[MD] extricating MOQ from SOM

[Heather Perella]

Case and Jim,


> [Jim Engele]
> Dynamic/Static, subject/object, I think I'm noticing
> the dynamic/static 
> qualites when I use the terms subject/object.
> 
> Can we also use term 'the middle way' from Buddhism?
>  Is that appropriate?
> 
> [Case]
> I thought Pirsig's said that the problem arrises
> from regarding SOM as THE
> fundamental metaphysical distinction. He does not
> say that there is no such
> distinction only that the static/dynamic distinction
> comes first. The
> interplay of the static and the dynamic is as much
> at work in subjective
> space as it is in the world of objects. 
> My take on Naragjuna is that he argued that it is
> just as wrong to focus on
> the transcendental world of mysticism as it is to be
> caught up in the grimy
> world of the everyday. They both matter. 

     Case this is exactly why Zen works perfectly with
the MoQ.  Everyday life is mystical.  This is why
Amerindian mysticism works perfectly, maybe even more
so than Zen, for the Amerindian notices mysticism,
notices quality, as you put it in subjects and objects
so much so, that a hunter needing food, will kill,
thank the animal, put back something of the animal in
a way that gives back, as the gift cycle must
continue, and yet, this also might be looked at as
pure survival.  The Amerindian gives something back to
respect the gift, to respect that these animals may
not choose to live here anymore.  Some speculate, as I
have, that Amerindians are so sensitive to and have
the wisdom towards respecting the animals and plants
is due to an experience that happened in the
Pleistocene where many big animals died out, either
due to climate or human impact or both.  This
experience of not being able to find animals that have
been hunted for some time, would almost certainty
change the worldview of any hunter.  It is practical
and also mystical, as it seems the animals and plants
feel our impact, and change their ways according to
how we act with them.  So, if we are courtesy with
animals, then animals will notice our kindness.  They
will notice we sometimes walk right by them, and in
the vast forest when you rarely might ever see a human
being during a certain season, and then when other
seasons occur there are humans, yet, these humans
aren't just killing everything in sight.  Well, the
families of deer won't communicate with each other on
how terrible humans are.  They will hear mostly good
stories about humans.  (For those that need more
modern terminology, this whole affair between wild
animals and humans is the scale of totally wild with
no human experience/impact-----and on the other side
of the scale is your dog lucky, total domestication,
or silk worms that rely totally on human beings to
move the male and female together so they touch each
other before any mating happens.  People have mated
silk worms in this fashion for so long that silk worms
won't mate unless humans bring them together.)  For
any local hunter or woodsmen, as to the more wild side
of the scale, they probably have noticed that young
deer will stick around close to human beings longer
than older deer, and any deer that live in an area
where no hunting is allowed, many of these deer will
just stand there ten yards away from a person without
moving.  This has not only happened to me, but to
others.  Deer know kindness, or what is kind to them. 
You could probably kill one of these every once in
while and their habits wouldn't change.  It would
appear that the deer are just giving themselves away -
the Gift.

     Jim, as to the middle way.  Sure, why not?  But
how would that balance act, or what is a balanced
event.  This is the living, breathing quality.  One
not just of human mind, but an event that is worldly,
full of just not human thoughts, but a world that
accounts for trees, wind, and cougar.  Why not?  


SA

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