[MD] the subjective

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] the subjective


On Tuesday 05 August 2008 1:36 AM Marsha writes to Joe:

Greetings Joe, Hi Marsha and all;

[Marsha]
Yes, the MOQ is beautiful!  But I have always been attracted to Eastern
philosophy, initally by Krishnamurti's writings. Now I am finding Buddhism
also beautiful.

<<<Anybody feel free to correct me if what I am writing is confused or
downright wrong.>>>

[Joe]

When I moved to CA in 1966 I met a building contractor who gave me a job.
He was interested in The Baghavad Gita and Arjuna¹s discussions.  I have
tried to become interested in Hinduism and Buddhism but no luck.  I have
read some, but I have no clear position.  IMO Earth, Water, Air, Fire and
the structure of Peasant, Merchant, Warrior, Priest became the template for
Pirsig¹s Inorganic, Organic, Social, Intellectual division of evolution.  I
prefer the octave of music as the model for evolution from esoteric
literature.

[Marsha]
Within Buddhism there are two truths.  (Not a truth and a falsehood, but two
truths.)  One of these is the _conventional truth_, which is the ordinary
empirical truth about the world.  It is "a truth dependent upon tacit
agreement, an everyday truth, a truth about things as they appear to
accurate ordinary investigation, as judged by appropriate human standards."
I equate _conventional truth_ to the static side of quality.

[Joe]
This seems to be a good description of the intellectual level SOL.

Hi Joe,

Yes it does seem that the subject-object point-of-view is the conventional 
view in the West.  Is it that way for all human beings, I cannot say.  That 
it soley defines intellect?  I cannot accept to be true.  I find the four 
levels within the MOQ perfect.  My disgreement with Bo is that I see no need 
for a new level.  And I disagree that DQ should in any way be contained 
within any kind of structure.  I think RMP got it right.



[Marsha]
The other truth is _ultimate truth_.  It is characterized by 'emptiness',
and further, by the emptiness of emptiness. The ultimate truth is the "way
things are when they are independent of convention, or to put it another
way, the way things turn out to be when we subject them to analysis with
intention of discovering the nature they have from their own side, as
opposed to the characteristics we impute to them."   I equate _ultimate
truth_ to Quality (DQ & sq).

[Joe]
Your emphasis on the term ³emptiness² echoes how I view the undefined
consciousness/self-awareness of the Social level.  In a seven level template
for evolution ³emptiness of emptiness² also echoes the evolution of Subject
only, the 6th higher emotional level.

I do not understand you seven level musical template.  I do love music, 
though.

It is because things are _empty_ of inherent existence that there is 
creativity and change.  If something was independent and permanent there 
would be no possibility for change.


[Marsha]
When I wrote, "Conventionally, of course.", I was stating as I investigate
'subjectivity' from the conventional, everyday point-of-view.  When I try to
"grasp", or define subjectivity it disappears.  It becomes objectified. Then
I might look to see what has objectived it, and again the subjective
experience becomes the object, etc., etc., etc.

[Joe]
I think my confusion comes from me having no understanding of how the 3rd
(woman) organic level evolves to the emptiness of the social level. Maybe
the emptiness of the womb became the driving force for a relationship of
emptiness-not emptiness with the child.  I can¹t envision how the
³emptiness² evolves from a mechanical outlook, the third level (woman). I
guess evolution is a kind of creation. Then emptiness becomes objectified by
slavery and evolves to the intellectual level, SOL. With your words I see
that if the social level does not remain empty but becomes objectified then
the relationship with what is undefined becomes mechanical, a slave, and
must evolve to an intellectual level to become free.  The relationship
between what is undefined S and what is defined O becomes intellectual, SOL.
Slavery is not empty.

Being a woman is never separate from my experience.  Of all the words in 
LILA, Lila's solioquy was for me the most profound and true.  There is so 
much I'd like to say about being woman and realizing from some far off 
knowledge that there is something vital missing by man's (any man's, all 
men's) definition of experience.  The experience of giving birth is the most 
important one.  But there is more...   Even as I sit here thinking about it 
my throat closes, and it is painful.  It may be that if my throat opens I 
may breathe fire.......   But there is still much to learn, and the time is 
not now.


[Marsha]
The _middle way_ in Buddhism would be between things existing as objects and
things not existing at all.  All entities are dependent arisen.  'Every
entity depends for its existence on causes and conditions, upon its parts,
upon wholes to which it belongs, and for its identity on **nominal and
conceptual imputation and conventions**.'  I equate the _middle way_ with
the MOQ as a whole; interrelated, ever-changing static patterns of value
within a ground of Dynamic Quality.

[Joe]
I do not know if I agree with that formulation since I do not want to
objectify Dynamic Quality as ³a ground².  A _middle_ way would be evolution
of S only to higher emotional or higher intellectual
Level, enlightenment, an embodiment of consciousness.  It is not s/o, it is
only s, not conscious/mechanical, only conscious, not influenced by the
glasses that culture hands us.

I was not happy with the word 'ground', either.

One can change those cultural glasses for ones of lesser strength.  It's 
quite possible to do that.  (I think they would be found in mysticism, and 
not science.)


[Marsha]
This is my interpretation, augmented by some borrowed text.  I hope I
haven't confused you more.  It's a bit more than you asked for, but my use
of 'conventionally' is embedded in my struggle to understand Nagarjuna's
MMK.  Please ignore if I've made a mess of it.

[Joe]
Marsha is beautiful!


I love you Joe.



Marsha