[MD] The MoQ and Politics? part 1 of 3

[MarshaV]

Hi John,  


>>>>> I should have said "tricky answer" rather than a "trick answer".
>>>> 
>>>> I answered understanding you meant "trick answer,"  and I wasn't
>>>> trying to trick anyone.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> No, I don't think you were.  But what I meant by "tricky" as opposed
>>> to "trick" had to do with the intrinsic nature of the formulation - "if you
>>> want to change the world, change yourself".  That's a tricky answer,
>>> for it's tricky sometimes to tell where the line between subject and
>>> object,self and world, can be drawn.  We both freely admit there is
>>> no place where the line has to be drawn - there's no metaphysically
>>> fundamental distinction of necessity, so such a line is always
>>> a creative act and it can be tricky at times, figuring out in the
>>> moment where the best point is.
>> 
>> That's why I think the idea of two-truths is so perfect; the lower,
>> static truth is not negated, but must never be confused with the
>> highertruth.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> I see. Yes, that does make a certain sense, as long as you can keep it
> straight that the line between the lower and the higher truth is a flexible
> one, that depends upon person and circumstance and shouldn't be
> construed absolutely.  But I take it that THAT is exactly what you're trying
> to get across.

I don't know what you mean ay flexible line; I don't see any such thing.
Maybe the idea is to hold both views simultaneously.  There are two 
truths, but they are different ways of experiencing same reality. The 
lower truth is our common, everyday experience of things.  The higher
truth is understanding things (patterns) as having no essence, as being 
impermanent and being interdependent: empty of inherent existence.
But I am not a Buddhist, so this is my interpretation from reading and 
thinking about the MoQ and Buddhism.


>>> Not you, but the formulation itself, seems to be used at times (by
>>> myself, you, Pirsig, others) in an evasive way - deflecting the
>>> problems we see around us.  A way of ignoring what needs to be
>>> dealt with, retreating into our isolated shells.  And sometimes that's
>>> probably a good thing.  So I can't utterly reject it.
>>> 
>>> Maybe I should say that I identify strongly with the propensity in
>>> myself to use this philosophical outlook as an evasion of responsibility.  
>>> That's probably closer to truth than anything and thus I'm not pointing
>>> the finger at you.  I'm making confession.
>> 




continued...