[MD] Awareness and consciousnes in the MOQ

[David Harding]

Hi Andre,

> Hello All,
> 
> My question relates specifically to the subject of this title but am wondering if links/clarifications could be applied to our discussion/understanding of the relationship between DQ and sq.
> 
> In ZMM Phaedrus talks about awareness and consciousness and how the knife separates them:
> 
> "I should talk now about Phaedrus' knife. It'll help understand some of the things we talked about.(remember that by 'knife' Phaedrus means 'an intellectual scalpel') The application of this knife, the division of the world into parts and the building of this structure, is something everybody does. All the time we are AWARE of millions of things around us-these changing shapes, these burning hills, the sound of the engine, the feel of the throttle, each rock and weed and fence post and piece of debris beside the road-AWARE of these things but not really CONSCIOUS of them unless there is something unusual or unless they reflect something we are predisposed to see. We could not possibly be CONSCIOUS of these things and remember all of them because our mind would be so full of useless details we would be unable to think. From all this AWARENESS we must select, and what we select and call CONSCIOUSNESS is never the same as the AWARENESS because the process of selection mutates it. We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of AWARENESS  around us and call that handful of sand the world.
>  "Once we have the handful of sand, the world of which we are CONSCIOUS, a process of discrimination goes to work on it. This is the knife. We divide the sand into parts. This and that. Here and there. Black and white. Now and then. The discrimination is the division of the CONSCIOUS universe into parts...."
> 
> "Classical understanding is concerned with the piles and the basis for sorting and interrelating them. Romantic understanding is directed toward the handful of sand before the sorting begins.
> 
> "About the Buddha that exists independently of any analytic thought much has been said-some would say TOO much, and would question any attempt to add to it...".(Pirsig's emphasis)
> (ZMM, p75-7)
> 
> The classical/romantic distinctions have, in LILA been replaced with the concept of 'static patterns of quality. These are the result of the DQ/sq 'interplay': Sq abstracted from DQ (Quality)
> 
> Back to the awareness Phaedrus talked about.
> 
> Question 1:Is the 'awareness' mentioned, this 'endless landscape' similar to MOQ's Quality? MOQ's Quality? Similar to Northrop's undifferentiated aesthetic continuum''? William James''flux'? Similar to (Phaedrus hints at this) the subject matter of all of the perennial philosophies: Nothingness, Suchness, Spirit, Zen's 'Primordial Face', the Christian's 'God', etc?
> I am aware that in the MOQ Quality is experience.

My understanding is that Quality is fundamental in both ZMM and the MOQ.  In ZMM - Quality is split up into classical and romantic quality.  In fact, it is this division which enabled Pirsig to arrive at the conclusion that everything was indeed quality.  At the end of ZMM Pirsig decides it is best to leave Quality undefined.    In Lila, Pirsig decides to define that thing which ought to be left undefined and he did this by placing the 'undefined' quality aside in a definition of DQ.  Once he did this he was then able to delve into the sq - defined - aspect of quality and not feel (as much) guilt about doing so.  The MOQ will, one day, be replaced by something better. 

Now from this perspective, I think that the awareness mentioned in ZMM is Pirsig still talking from a SOM perspective whereby "We" are always objects going through a certain space and time and that our intellects only capture a certain amount of this sensory experience.  The MOQ contradicted this and said that is a good idea but not actual reality.   

Further to your point about MOQ's Quality being the same as other stuff - I think we can draw these comparisons and claim they all really mean the same thing, but what value is there in doing so?  Northrop and James and Zen Buddhism and Christianity all screw up what the other person is trying to say.   You 'know' if they are talking about the same thing.  But what we're doing now is nothing other than intellectual tricks with no other goal than the fact that they are intellectual tricks... What's the point in comparing them? Each one of these things has a view of reality different from the other - why try make them all the same thing? I think a better question to ask is - what's good about them? That's worth talking about.  

> Question 2: Following from this can we state that static patterns of value refer to or are indications of levels of 'consciousness'? Where organic patterns of value experience events/are conscious of events and react to these experiences organically, according to the laws of nature? And, further up the levels (social, intellectual) with increasing consciousness of freedom. (I have excluded the inorganic level because the MOQ states that consciousness is intellectual patterns of quality). (see Annotn 32)

It's strange to me why you would only exclude the inorganic level in the 'levels of consciousness' if, as Pirsig has stated, consciousness be restricted to the intellectual level.  Have you also read Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner?

"If one extends the term intellectual to include primitive cultures just because they are thinking about things, why stop there? How about chimpanzees? Don't they think? How about earthworms? Don't they make conscious decisions? How about bacteria responding to light and darkness? How about chemicals responding to light and darkness? Our intellectual level is broadening to a point where it is losing all its meaning. You have to cut it off somewhere, and it seems to me the greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular experience and which behave according to rules of their own."

I mean you can use the term consciousness all the way down to the inorganic level if you like.  Everything - from sub atomic particles to our human minds make value decisions. This is what the MOQ states. This isn't changed if we just use the term consciousness for just the intellectual level.  And you're right, the level of freedom increases as we move up the levels..   

> And that to return to this awareness one must 'kill all intellectual patterns' i.e. detach from them. The injunctions for 'reaching' this state as laid out in the various perennial philosophies are unanimous in this. In that sense they are termed 'trans-mental'/trans-intellectual which can be read as 'above' or perhaps as 'pre-intellectual'. I am here of course talking about prayer, meditative and contemplative practices.

I agree, when someone 'kills all intellectual patterns' they can be said to be enlightened.

> Perhaps seeing it in this way explains the intuitions, the 'dim apprehensions through a weakening/shattering of static patterns because the 'endless landscape of awareness' has been overlaid/covered up with piles and piles of static intellectualization. Therefore this 'endless landscape' has never been absent (you are already enlightened, you just do not realize it) Remove the intellectualizations and in a flash Quality will be revealed (the Dharmakaya Light)...push one 'level' farther and it will be revealed that you are that (tat tvam asi) meaning you are those patterns-not just a select bundle you call your 'self' or 'ego'.

Sorry Andre. I have to disagree with this.  There is no level above the intellectual level.  DQ is not a 'level' - not even a single quoted one :-) .

> No, all of them. And realizing this, all is just as it is. Very normal...360 degrees....Quality perceived through static patterns. Realizing the harmony at the center of it all. (Anthony's PhD, p38) Timeless, space-less...because prior to time, prior to space.
> 
> " Misty rain on Mount Lu,
>  And waves surging on the river Che:
>  When you have not yet been there,
>  Many a regret surely you have:
>  But once there and homeward you wend,
>  How matter of fact things look!
>  Misty rain on Mount Lu,
>  And waves surging on the river Che.
>                  -Su Tung-Po
> 
> 
> I have taken some liberties here and there and wonder if this is in agreement with the MOQ? If not, please point me to my misapprehensions. And apologies for the length of this post.

To my understanding 360 degrees enlightenment is what happens after 180 degrees enlightenment.  That is, after one has experienced 'pure' DQ and realised 'the harmony at the center of it all', then they are to take this experience and apply it back to the static patterns of their own life.  

Thanks Andre,

-David.