[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[David Harding]

Hi 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.

Is a 'referring term' not a definition? I think to some degree that it is.. Picking up bar ladies and writing Metaphysics are a part of life.

> 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.

And I don't disagree with this as I said to dmb.  What I was referring to was the SOM rhetoric Pirsig was using to make his argument.  That is, using the assumption that  there is always 'sensory experience'.  Because he is using SOM rhetoric doesn't invalidate his argument. His argument isn't wrong. 

Further, it seems my use of the term contradict perhaps was too strong.   The MOQ doesn't contradict SOM, it does however expand 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.

Yep. And thats why I say below that it's worth talking about what's good about them...  I don't like comparisons which are made irrespective of their quality.  This is what I'm saying.

> 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.

Are you really comparing these thinkers by looking at them from the perspective of how good they are? I don't think that you are.  If you would like to judge how good Christianity is or Northrop is or Buddhism is - talk to me about them from the perspective of the best metaphysical platform there is - The MOQ.  

> 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.

Well, I'm not sure how you define 'contemplative path' however to me it conjures up a path the intellect follows while it thinks about something... i.e. not 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.

I see what you're trying to do.  That is, to integrate what Wilbur has written about the two schools into the framework of the MOQ.  Something that I suggest we ought to do above.   This is the sort of thing that this board is built to do. So, my views on it..

I don't necessarily agree with the analogies that you are drawing.  While I do agree that the Hinayana school of Buddhism seems only interested in 180 degrees enlightenment, what's wrong with Pirsig's explanation of 180 degree and 360 degrees enlightenment in this regard? 

Furthermore, to Marsha's point - I think that mindfulness is the the act of 'mastering' or 'perfecting' the static patterns of ones life.  In this act, one has to do something over and over again until they have mastered the art of that thing.. Certainly when the act of mastering begins the I is very important.  I know from my own experience that when I start to sit, and I haven't for some time, the I, the voice inside my head, is very loud. It's only by paying attention to and being aware of it, that the mind begins to slow and quiet down. Not encouraging, just being aware..  If sitting is done with enough regularity, the mind will eventually stop.  It's at this point one is said to be enlightened and there is no longer any 'I'.  This Lila quote describes what I am talking about:

"The Zen monk's daily life is nothing but one ritual after another, hour after hour, day after day, all his life. They don't tell him to shatter those static patterns to discover the unwritten dharma. They want him to get those patterns perfect!

The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you do not free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary static patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma chasing its tail.' You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you master them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget them and they are gone. There in the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found."

Thanks Andre,

-David.