[MD] Definitions.

[MarshaV]

Hi Ant,


It seems always a matter of what is left in and what is left out:  


"A philosophologist would normally be indignant at the impertinence of someone thinking he could improve on the great Harvard philosopher, but James himself, to judge from what Phaedrus had read so far, would have been very enthusiastic about the effort.  He was, after all, a philosopher."

"...

"But with a Metaphysics of Quality the empirical experience is not an experience of 'objects.' It's an experience of value patterns produced by a number of sources, not just inorganic patterns. When an insane person - or a hypnotized person or a person from a primitive culture - advances some explanation of the universe that is completely at odds with current scientific reality, we do not have to believe he has jumped off the end of the empirical world. He is just a person who is valuing intellectual patterns that, because they are outside the range of our own culture, we perceive to have very low quality. Some biological or social or Dynamic force has altered his judgment of quality. It has caused him to filter out what we call normal cultural intellectual patterns just as ruthlessly as our culture filters out his."
 
        (RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 26).   


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sxsssRAB8bc&feature=plcp
 
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=relmfu&v=LaeiWWs17fs    
 
 

Marsha 





On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:55 AM, MarshaV wrote:


Hi Ant,

Perhaps I have more respect for you and your textbook than you do.  My deepest interest has been in exploring the MoQ as a bridge between Eastern and Western philosophical experiences.  I feel it was you and the references in your textbook that pointed the way and provided the legitimacy for such a pursuit, and also prevented me from being tossed out of the MD as a heretic.  When you wrote:

       "As Hagen (1997, p.30) notes, one of the most fundamental 
       truths noted by the Buddha is that all aspects of our experience 
       are in constant flux and change. According to the Buddha, when a 
       person ignores this truth they subject themselves to dukkha."

I thought you understood "that ALL (emphasis mine) aspects of our experience are in constant flux and change."

And about RMP's recommendation:  

       "While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism 
       recently out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen 
       and published by Tuttle Publishing. I recommend you get it because 
       it shows the similarities, between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more 
       clearly than any other I have seen." 
              (Pirsig to McWatt, May 6th 1998)

When RMP wrote the above he didn't state that even though there are many similarities, it cannot be explored because it represents the "world of the Buddha."  He didn't state any exceptions.  Nor did he claim Hagen's book represented the Dynamic/mystical aspects of the MoQ making its contents beyond discussion.  I take it that RMP's recommendation was made with great seriousness and his "more clearly" was a statement of earnestness.  This, to me, makes a comparison with Buddhism as least as legitimate as a comparison with Whitehead's process philosophy or a comparison with James's American Pragmatism.  The language of Eastern presentation may seem strange to the Western habits of thinking, but that may just require more work and not dismissal.

As far as maintains go, I find them to be ever-changing from moment to moment; end of story.

It is not that the World of the Buddha, the Eastern, idea of reality is contradictory, it is just that it won't fit into the usual conceptual framework and relies on a deeper insight.  There are many ways to meditate for many purposes, and some are better than others.  No, I do not think meditation is a requirement for realization, but it can give you VALUABLE information of the workings of the mind, a mind that is an intricate part of constructing the static world, a more direct knowledge.  And as W. James wrote:

“Introspective observation is what we have to rely on first and foremost and always. I regard the belief [in introspection] as the most fundamental of all the postulates of Psychology” 
      (W. James, 1890)

Am I now sounding preachy?  I do not mean to. I am neither Asian nor a Buddhist.  What I am is a student, and will forever remain a student.


Marsha







On Feb 24, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> Marsha V asked February 22nd:
> Hi Ant,
> 
> What exactly do you mean by "world of the Buddha" [sic]?  
> 
> Good question, Marsha.  It's a phrase of Robert Pirsig's that he often used in my correspondence with him which he has, in turn, borrowed from East Asian literature.  It relates to the Zen "mountains and rivers" poem:
> 
> 
> Before you study Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; 
> [the static viewpoint of the MOQ as found in ZMM and LILA]
> 
> While  you are studying Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; 
> [the Dynamic viewpoint of the MOQ as found in "LILA's Child" and the McWatt-Pirsig PhD correspondence.  This is the "World of the Buddhas" viewpoint you were asking about] 
> 
> But once you have had enlightenment mountains are once again mountains and rivers again rivers. 
> [the static-Dynamic viewpoint of the MOQ found in McWatt-Pirsig PhD correspondence; further explanation of this "dual" perspective is given by Paul Turner in his Tetralemma article at:  http://robertpirsig.org/Tetralemma.htm ].
> 
> 
> 
> Marsha continued:  
> 
> "Is that suppose to be some mysterious, ambiguous, unreachable, strawman perspective to conveniently dismiss what which is non-western, or might it too be legitimate human insight available from direct experience at different stages of meditation or Buddhist practice?  Experiences that might not be available to those who do not have the 'patience' to meditate?  RMP was suppose to have had a sudden realization, not a miraculous transformation into a Buddha."  
> 
> Ant comments:
> 
> My feeling is that this dual "static-Dynamic" perspective is only understood after years of thought and reflection.  As far as Pirsig is concerned, I think this relates to the time between his 1948 journey to Korea and his shorter 1961 journey to the nuthouse in Chicago.  Though I doubt meditation is an essential requirement to achieve this realisation, I think it certainly helps; as do psychedelics (such as peyote) when used in a responsible manner.
> 
> 
> 
> Marsha continued:  
> 
> "It seems too easy to dismiss the Buddhist philosophical perspective with a simple 'it represents the "world of the Buddha"' [sic].  RMP said that the ideal is to hold the DQ perspective and the sq perspective simultaneously."
> 
> Ant comments:
> 
> Yes, as I said above, this "ideal" that Pirsig mentions, relates to the third part of the "Mountains and Rivers" Zen poem.
> 
> 
> 
> Marsha continued:  
> 
> Would that ideal be a contradiction and too much from the "world of the Buddha" [sic]?  Or how about something being from the 'world of Perennial Philosophy'?  Is that more comfortable?  Can you more easily justify that?"  
> 
> Ant comments:
> 
> I think introducing a notion of 'the world of Perennial Philosophy" would confuse things in this particular context.  The "World of the Buddhas" is a poetic phrase; not a label for a particular philosophical tradition.  The phrase 'The World of Perennial Philosophy" would, however, make a great title for a documentary series!
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ant
> 
> 


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___