Re: LS Obtaining both sQ & DQ in real life

From: David L Thomas (dlt44@ipa.net)
Date: Sat Aug 14 1999 - 19:13:16 BST


L S

BO

My argument is that lower levels presents no dynamism - no longer.
(there are no new elements, life or societal forms), the Intellectual
level is now the border to the dynamic hinterland, but it is as
always with borders - a ZONE. One may never approach it, one may go
near, or one may even trespass it, as Pirsig did. Diana's and David's
ideal position is to stay at a distance where SQ/DQ are of equal
influence.....but it's at the Intellect where the dynamic action is.
There's no way back...

DAVE

In the real world I can hear the AIDS virus(?) shouting, "Whoa there, you
sayn' I ain't dynamic?, better smile when you say that partner!" What about
the ever new annual strain of the "Diana's Domicile" flu?

Is it because of the intellect ..."the same man apt to feel good in a very bad
environment, say in an old hotel in Key Largo, in a hurricane.?" No, says
RMP, "a hurricane [I&BSPoV] in Key Largo promises a Dynamic relief from static
patterns" L p118

BO

Some people talk about DQ as if it's the antidote to all evil, but it's a
dangerous pursuit. Phaedrus (of ZMM) went all the way, and we know what that
cost him. It resulted in a new world view, and for that I am him eternally
grateful, but the naked DQ killed old Phaedrus.

DAVE

Agreed, and this was good, because while Phaedrus was a master swordsman he
was not, nor would he ever been a Zen master, or written ZMM, let alone gotten
it published, just too much ego.

I would also suggest that mistaking the stability of the lower levels as "no
dynamism" is equally dangerous and that: "A movement beyond intellect will
necessarily build on its (lone) self (dualist) nature," does not necessarily
imply a higher "X" layer "but transcends [the many (IBSISoV+DQ)] it into [the
one, (Q)] a self who sees the underlying dynamic quality common to all..."
Scratch "levels & (soul)" ALL covers it.

In another post you said that the morality of MoQ does not replace traditional
ethics. I again agree, but would extend that to say the MoQ (a metaphysics) is
not, by itself, a "real world" philosophy. It describes the ship, the ocean,
even the principles of navigation, but doesn't provide a steering system. IMHO
Pirsig suggests that the Zen experience provides a way to build that system.
Not Buddhism, but Zen, in the vein of this quote:

"Strictly speaking," explains Suzuki, "Zen has no philosophy of its own. Its
teaching is concentrated on an intuitive experience, and the intellectual
content of this experience can be supplied by a system of thought not
necessarily Buddhistic... Zen Buddhists are sometimes Confucianists, sometimes
Taoists, or sometimes even Shintoist; Zen experience can also be explained by
Western philosophy"

When DT Suzuki first published this book in in 1938 it was titled "Zen
Buddhism and Its Influence on Japanese Culture" but in 1956 when it was
revised and republished is was titled just "Zen and Japanese Culture".
This subtle title shift at mid-century heralded the whole universe of "Zen
and" books that currently line the "Eastern Thought" sections of our
bookstores. ZMM, being the most significant of course. I think that the case
can be made that in Suzuki's work is the roots of a split between Zen and
Buddhism. At the same time positioning Zen as a fusion between "dharma" and "practice."

Steven Bachelor, in "Buddhism without Beliefs", defines these terms as:
"Broadly speaking, "dharma" refers to the teachings of the Buddha as well as
those aspects of reality and experience with which his teachings are
concerned. "Dharma practice" refers to the way of life undertaken by someone
who is inspired by such teachings."

Now after a few hundred years of "practicing" inspired by "dharma" Zen has
subsumed both in much the same way the MoQ proposes to subsume its
philosophical base(s). Thus positioned, both them are readily adaptable to to
each other. The MoQ is the "base" and Zen is the "practice", combined the
"real world way". Does this imply saffron robes, begging bowls, years of
martial arts training or sitting immobile indeterminately. No and Yes. No, in
so much as the experience must be individualistic and its manifestations "Now"
post postmodern and ever changing. Yes, in that the essence of "the way of
life undertaken" will remain the same.

The MoQ defines freedom, Zen is the discipline though which it may be
achieved. Both are rooted in everyday pragmatism based on the cultivation of
self reliance and self being. For this to fusion to happen Zen will have to
continue to shed its "religious" being and the other 99% of the MoQ will have
to be articulated.

Dave

MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:48 GMT