[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[Andre]

David to Andre:
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.

Andre:
Hi David, just nit picking here. Pirsig did, of course not 'define' DQ as you appear to say above; he made it a 'referring term' thereby leaving 'it' undefined.

David:
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.

Andre:
Not sure if I understand your meaning here David, but on the face of it must disagree. I do not believe Pirsig was 'talking from a SOM perspective...' (as dmb points out as well) rather he challenges that perspective immediately by suggesting that the 'piles of sand' are NOT the be all and end all of our 'existence'. Which is what a SOM perspective claims. It is analogy upon analogy. Objects are an intellectual 'creation', 'space and time' are intellectual 'creations', the data we 'get' through 'sensory experience' and their extensions(microscope/telescope etc) tells only part of the story. Man in this sense is the participant but Quality is the measure  ;-).

In the sense that the hand-fulls of sand (i.e. those things which we allow/accept in our consciousness) are just that, a hand-full taken from the endless landscape of awareness (which is Reality).

Given this, we can see that the MOQ does not 'contradict' this, but rather refines this insight and weaves it into a wonderful metaphysics.

David:
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.

Andre:
I disagree here David. A careful reading of Northrop (which, to me is like climbing Mount Everest on bare feet and without an oxygen mask) and Pirsig (and for that matter the perennial philosophies of both East and West) shows that awareness of the 'common ground' we walk on is obscured by all these different analogies upon analogies. I think the value lies in exactly that: we hussle and bustle and fight and disagree and kill because of the analogies the different cultures have abstracted and in the process seem to have forgotten that to which they all point: Quality.

David:
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.

Andre:
At present it seems to me that all the various analogies the perennial philosophies speak of are separated/dissociated from each other. The good about them is what they are pointing to and that binds them. Both Northrop and Pirsig (and I think Buddhism fits here as well) are pointing this out in an effort to reach understanding and reintegrating that which has never been separate and indeed finding that as a platform on which East does meet West.

David:
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?

Andre:
Yes, that is my omission. Thank you for reminding me.

David:
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  .

Andre:
Agreed, but it was meant to indicate differentiations and refinements within the intellectual level especially if one wants to follow the 'contemplative path' i.e. following DQ. The contemplative path does have 'stages' (a bit like the 'stages' in education: pre-school, primary school, secondary, tertiary etc. they are all 'education' but to confuse these 'levels' could be quite disastrous). That is why I criticized Marsha for her claim that 'in mindfulness there is no 'I'). My own experience, confirmed by most of the perennial philosophies dispute this.

Mindfulness IS a powerful and profound practice but it is NOT complete. As Wilber explains:
"...there is still a subtle dualism contained in pure witnessing awareness itself. There are many technical ways to explain this, but the simplest is: the Hinayana level aims at enlightenment for oneself but neglects the enlightenment of others. And doesn't that show that there is some trace of ego left, getting yours and neglecting others?".

He goes on to say that '...where the Hinayana teachings stress individual enlightenment, the Mahayana teachings go one step further and also stress the enlightenment of all beings".

I think that the Dynamic Quality viewpoint of the MOQ corresponds, in this respect more with the Mahayana school of Buddhism than with the Hinayana one. The return to the marketplace.

Thanks David.